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 |
Acceptability of financial incentives for breastfeeding: thematic analysis of readers’ comments to UK online news reports
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12884-015-0549-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma L Giles, Matthew Holmes, Elaine McColl, Falko F Sniehotta, Jean M Adams |
| Abstract |
Whilst it is recommended that babies are breastfeed exclusively for the first six months, many mothers do not maintain breastfeeding for this length of time. Previous research confirms that women and midwives value financial incentives for breastfeeding, but limited research has explored the wider acceptability of these interventions to the general public. This paper examines opinion towards financial incentives for breastfeeding using reader responses to UK on-line media coverage of a study undertaken in this area. This study used netnography to undertake a thematic analysis of 3,373 reader comments posted in response to thirteen articles, published in November 2013, which reported findings from a pilot randomised controlled trial of financial incentives for breastfeeding. All articles were published on one of six UK news websites that achieved a monthly audience of at least five million viewers across laptop and desktop computers and mobile devices in April-May 2013. Nine analytical themes were identified, with a majority view that financial incentives for breastfeeding are unacceptable. These themes cover a range of opinions: from negligent parents unable to take responsibility for their own actions; through to psychologically vulnerable members of society who should be protected from coercion and manipulation; to capable and responsible women who can, and should be allowed to, make their own decisions. Many views focused on the immediate costs of the intervention, concluding that this was something that was currently unaffordable to fund (e.g. by the NHS). Others contrasted the value of the incentive against other 'costs' of breastfeeding. There was some consideration of the issue of cost-effectiveness and cost-saving, where the potential future benefit from initial investment was identified. Many commenters identified that financial incentives do not address the many structural and cultural barriers to breastfeeding. Overall, those commenting on the on-line UK news articles viewed financial incentives for breastfeeding as unacceptable and that alternative, structural, interventions were likely to be more effective. Further consideration of how best to conduct internet-based qualitative research to elicit opinion towards public health issues is required. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 Kingdom | 23 | 62% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Guinea | 1 | 3% |
| Austria | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 49% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 27% |
| Scientists | 9 | 24% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Romania | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 159 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 12% |
| Researcher | 19 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 9% |
| Other | 35 | 21% |
| Unknown | 38 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 11% |
| Psychology | 14 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 12% |
| Unknown | 49 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 16 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,582,135
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#378
of 4,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,755
of 267,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#6
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 267,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.