↓ Skip to main content

Good practices according to WHO’s recommendation for normal labor and birth and women’s assessment of the care received: the “birth in Brazil” national research study, 2011/2012

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Good practices according to WHO’s recommendation for normal labor and birth and women’s assessment of the care received: the “birth in Brazil” national research study, 2011/2012
Published in
Reproductive Health, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12978-016-0233-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcia Leonardi Baldisserotto, Mariza Miranda Theme Filha, Silvana Granado Nogueira da Gama

Abstract

The World Health Organization recommends good practices for the conduct of uncomplicated labor and birth, with the aim of improving the quality of and assessment by women of childbirth care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between adoption of good practices according to WHO's recommendation for normal labor and birth and assessment by women of the care received. Birth in Brazil is a national hospital-based study with countrywide representation consisting of 23,894 mothers and their newborns, conducted between February 2011 and October 2012. The present study analysed a subsample of this national survey. Postpartum women classified as low risk during pregnancy who had experienced either spontaneous or induced labor were included in this study, totalling 4102 mothers. To estimate the association between assessment by women of the childbirth care received (dependent variable) and good practices according to WHO's recommendation during normal labor and birth (independent variables), a multinomial logistic regression analysis was used and crude and adjusted odds ratios calculated with their 95 % confidence intervals. The good practices associated with positive assessment of the care received by women during labor and birth included the partner's presence, privacy in the birthing place, time available to ask questions, clarity of information received, and empathic support from caregivers during labor and birth. Freedom of movement, free nutrition offered, choice of companions, nonpharmacological analgesia, skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding in the childbirth room were not associated with the assessment by women of the care received. Our findings reveal the importance to mothers of their relationship with the team of caregivers during labor and birth. Therefore, caregiver teams must be qualified within a more humanistic vision of childbirth health care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 166 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Researcher 11 7%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 47 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 18%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Psychology 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 51 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2016.
All research outputs
#13,136,392
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#928
of 1,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,877
of 315,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#25
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.