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 |
The effect of the facilitated tucking position in reducing vaccination-induced pain in newborns
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Italian Journal of Pediatrics, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13052-015-0168-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sibel Kucukoglu, Sirin Kurt, Aynur Aytekin |
| Abstract |
This study was conducted to evaluate the pain perceptions of newborns during the hepatitis B (HBV) vaccinations performed in the facilitated tucking position and the classical holding position, respectively. The randomized controlled experimental study was conducted between 1 September 2014 and 30 December 2014 at the neonatal intensive care unit of a Turkish university hospital. One group of infants was held in the facilitated tucking position (the treatment group; n = 30) during HBV vaccination; infants in the other group were held in the classical holding position (the control group; n = 30) during HBV vaccination. The Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) scores of the infants in the treatment and control groups were compared during procedure. Also, the infants' physiological parameters were compared before, during, and after the procedure. Descriptive statistics, a chi-square test, and an independent samples t-test were used to assess the data. The mean pain scores of infants vaccinated in the facilitated tucking position (2.83 ± 1.18) were significantly statistically lower than the scores of infants vaccinated in the classical holding position (6.47 ± 1.07) (p < 0.05). The pain perceptions of newborns held in the facilitated tucking position during HBV vaccination were lower. The facilitated tucking position, a non-pharmacological method, is recommended as an effective and useful method for reducing pain during the procedure. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 177 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 13% |
| Researcher | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 27 | 15% |
| Unknown | 73 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 57 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 20% |
| Engineering | 2 | 1% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | <1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Unknown | 75 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,091,226
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#421
of 1,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,759
of 277,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#9
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 277,674 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.