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 |
Personal and environmental factors associated with the utilisation of maternity waiting homes in rural Zambia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12884-017-1317-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cephas Sialubanje, Karlijn Massar, Davidson H. Hamer, Robert A. C. Ruiter |
| Abstract |
Although the association between the presence of maternity waiting homes (MWHs) and the personal and environmental factors that affect the use of MWHs has been explained in qualitative terms, it has never been tested in quantitative terms. The aim of this study was to test the association between the presence of MWHs and personal and environmental factors that affect the use of MWHs. A cross-sectional study was conducted using an interviewer-administered questionnaire from 1(st) July to 31(st) August, 2014 among 340 women of reproductive age in 15 rural health centres in Kalomo district, Zambia. Tests of association (chi square, logistic regression analysis, odds ratio) were conducted to determine the strength of the association between the presence of MWHs and personal and environmental factors. Differences between respondents who used MWHs and those who did not were also tested. Compared to respondents from health centres without MWHs, those from centres with MWHs had higher odds of expressing willingness to use MWHs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.39-15.17), perceived more benefits from using a MWH (aOR =8.63; 95% CI: 3.13-23.79), perceived more social pressure from important others to use MWH (aOR =27.09; 95% CI: 12.23-60.03) and higher personal risk from pregnancy and childbirth related complications (aOR =11.63; 95% CI: 2.52-53.62). Furthermore, these respondents had higher odds of staying at a health centre before delivery (aOR =1.78; 95% CI: 1.05-3.02), giving birth at a health facility (aOR = 3.36; 95% CI: 1.85-6.12) and receiving care from a skilled birth attendant (aOR =3.24; 95% CI: 1.80-5.84). In contrast, these respondents had lower odds of perceiving barriers regarding the use of MWHs (aOR =0.27; 95% CI: 0.16-0.47). Factors positively associated with the use of MWHs included longer distances to the nearest health centre (p = 0.004), higher number of antenatal care (ANC) visits (p = 0.001), higher proportions of complications during ANC (p = 0.09) and women's perception of benefits gained from staying in a MWH while waiting for delivery at the health centre (p = 0.001). These findings suggest a need for health interventions that focus on promoting ANC use, raising awareness about the risk and severity of pregnancy complications, promoting family and community support, and mitigating logistical barriers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ethiopia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 147 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 36 | 24% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 46 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 9% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Unknown | 53 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,428,455
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#2,688
of 4,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,183
of 312,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#52
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. 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 312,967 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.