↓ Skip to main content

Abuse and disrespect in childbirth process and abortion situation in Latin America and the Caribbean—systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Abuse and disrespect in childbirth process and abortion situation in Latin America and the Caribbean—systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0516-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sofia Madeira, Vicky Pileggi, João Paulo Souza

Abstract

Studies show that a large number of women around the world have experienced situations of abuse, disrespect, abuse, and neglect during childbirth and/or abortion. This violence is a serious violation of the rights of women, especially because it is a period in which the woman is more physiologically, socially, and psychologically vulnerable. Although this type of violence is known, there is still no international consensus on the definition of such violence and its prevalence is not known. In this sense, this systematic review aims (1) to find quantitative data about abuse and disrespect in obstetric care (delivery and/or abortion) in Latin America and the Caribbean to estimate the average prevalence of this type of abuse and (2) to identify interventions-including programs, laws, and regulations-which have been implemented to prevent or respond to abuse and disrespect in childbirth process and abortion situation, evaluating its effectiveness on a global scale. For this, we will use a refined and pre-established strategy to search databases such as PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Scielo, and the studies found will pass through a selection process to complete the screening stage. Data will be extracted using standardized forms with the following information: scope of study, sample characteristics, objectives, design, data collection, methods of analysis, data source, and results. Considering the heterogeneity of the definitions of abuse, disrespect, and mistreatment of women in labor or abortion, it may not be possible to carry out the meta-analysis of the frequency of events reported in the included articles. Events reported by the original articles will be classified according to a typology of abuse, disrespect, and maltreatment in the labor or abortion process described by Bohren et al. (PLoS Med, 2015). PROSPERO CRD42016038651.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 4%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 39 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 20%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Psychology 6 5%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 41 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,911,821
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,710
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,721
of 317,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#51
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 317,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.