↓ Skip to main content

The reliability of a newborn foot length measurement tool used by community volunteers to identify low birth weight or premature babies born at home in southern Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
The reliability of a newborn foot length measurement tool used by community volunteers to identify low birth weight or premature babies born at home in southern Tanzania
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-859
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanya Marchant, Suzanne Penfold, Elibariki Mkumbo, Donat Shamba, Jennie Jaribu, Fatuma Manzi, Joanna Schellenberg

Abstract

Low birthweight babies need extra care, and families need to know whether their newborn is low birthweight in settings where many births are at home and weighing scales are largely absent. In the context of a trial to improve newborn health in southern Tanzania, a counselling card was developed that incorporated a newborn foot length measurement tool to screen newborns for low birth weight and prematurity. This was used by community volunteers at home visits and shows a scale picture of a newborn foot with markers for a 'short foot' (<8 cm). The tool built on previous hospital based research that found newborn foot length <8 cm to have sensitivity and specificity to identify low birthweight (<2500 g) of 87% and 60% respectively.

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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 27 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 26%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 25 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 August 2014.
All research outputs
#14,783,695
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,874
of 14,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,323
of 235,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#212
of 281 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,834 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 235,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 281 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.