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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The effects of asking a fertility intention question in primary care settings: a systematic review protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0412-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul A. Henning, Carolyne K. Burgess, Heidi E. Jones, Wendy V. Norman |
| Abstract |
Planning for pregnancy has been associated with reduced unwanted pregnancies and improved pregnancy outcomes. Despite the benefits of planned pregnancy, there are no guideline recommendations on routine counseling regarding pregnancy intention in primary care settings. The objective of the systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of incorporating questions of pregnancy intention into primary care. A systematic search of the literature will be conducted for any studies comparing questions of pregnancy intention in primary care settings with no intervention or a control intervention. Types of studies will include randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, and observation studies. Participants will include patients of reproductive age presenting to primary health care settings. Interventions will include any assessment of fertility intention and follow-up care compared with a control group or no intervention. Outcomes will include quantitative data with rates for contraceptive uptake, and any pregnancy related outcome. Databases (Ovid MEDLINE; Pubmed; CINAHL; EMBASE; CDR/DARE databases; Web of Science; ISRCTN registry; Clinicaltrials.gov; Cochrane Library) will be searched from the year 2000 to current. Screening of identified articles and data extraction will be conducted in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Jadad scale. Methodological quality of observational and non-randomized trials will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or by consulting a third author. Meta-analyses will be performed if appropriate. Determining the effect of including questions of pregnancy intention into primary care can provide evidence for the development of clinical practice guidelines and inform primary care providers if this simple and low-cost intervention should be routinely employed. This review will also identify any gaps in the current literature on this topic and provide direction for future research in this area of study. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42015019726. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 46 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 19 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,525,776
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,787
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#308,568
of 417,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#33
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 417,650 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.