↓ Skip to main content

Evidence of the factors that influence the utilisation of Kangaroo Mother Care by parents with low-birth-weight infants in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): a scoping review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
Evidence of the factors that influence the utilisation of Kangaroo Mother Care by parents with low-birth-weight infants in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): a scoping review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0714-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina T. Mathias, Solange Mianda, Themba G. Ginindza

Abstract

The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 emphasises on reducing neonatal deaths caused by low birth weight (LBW) complications by the implementation and utilisation of Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the empirical evidence of KMC optimising low-birth-weight infants' (LBWIs') survival, its advantages and the LMICs implementing the service, studies have shown that LBW infant deaths occurring in LMICs are largely contributing to global child mortality. The aim of this scoping review is to map out the literature on barriers, challenges and facilitators of KMC utilisation by parents with LBWIs. This scoping review will use Endnote X7 reference management software to manage articles. The review search strategy will use SCIELO and LILACS databases. Other databases will be used via EBSCOHost search engine and these are Academic search complete, CINAHL with full text, Education source, Health source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Medline with full text and Medline. We will also use Google Scholar, JSTOR, Open grey search engines and reference lists. A two-phase search mapping out process will be done. In phase 1, one reviewer will perform the title screening and removal of duplicates. Two reviewers will do a parallel abstract screening according to eligibility criteria. Phase 2 will involve the reading of full articles and exclusion of articles, in accordance with the eligibility criteria. Data extraction from the articles will be done by two reviewers independently and parallel to the data extraction form. The data quality assessment of the eligible studies will be done using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The extraction of the synthesised results and thematic content analysis of the studies will be done by NVIVO version 10. We expect to find studies on barriers, challenges and facilitating factors of KMC utilisation by parents with LBWIs in LMICs. The review outcomes will guide future research and practice and inform policy. The findings will be disseminated in print, electronic and conference presentations related to maternal child and neonatal health.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 14%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 47 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 32 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 19%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 50 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,814,924
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#993
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,525
of 329,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#33
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 329,678 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.