↓ 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

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Researcher 10 8%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 27 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 35 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 23%
Social Sciences 11 8%
Psychology 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 31 24%

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
#8,444,214
of 16,392,950 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#668
of 1,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,869
of 393,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#38
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,392,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 393,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.