↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility and acceptability of regular weighing, setting weight gain limits and providing feedback by community midwives to prevent excess weight gain during pregnancy: randomised controlled trial…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Obesity, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Feasibility and acceptability of regular weighing, setting weight gain limits and providing feedback by community midwives to prevent excess weight gain during pregnancy: randomised controlled trial and qualitative study
Published in
BMC Obesity, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40608-015-0061-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

AJ Daley, K. Jolly, SA Jebb, AL Lewis, S. Clifford, AK Roalfe, S. Kenyon, P. Aveyard

Abstract

Regular weighing in pregnant women is not currently recommended in many countries but has been suggested to prevent excessive gestational weight gain. This study aimed to establish the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating regular weighing, setting maximum weight gain targets and feedback by community midwives. Low risk pregnant women cared for by eight community midwives were randomised to usual care or usual care plus the intervention at 10-14 weeks of pregnancy. The intervention involved community midwives weighing and plotting weight on a weight gain chart, setting weight gain limit targets, giving brief feedback at each antenatal appointment and encouraging women to weigh themselves weekly between antenatal appointments. Women and midwives were interviewed about their views of the intervention. The focus of the study was on process evaluation. Community midwives referred 123 women and 115 were scheduled for their dating scan within the study period. Of these, 84/115 were approached at their dating scan and 76/84 (90.5 %) randomised. Data showed a modest difference favouring the intervention group in the percentage of women gaining excessive gestational weight (23.5 % versus 29.4 %). The intervention group consistently reported smaller increases in depression and anxiety scores throughout pregnancy compared with usual care. Most women commented the intervention was useful in encouraging them to think about their weight and believed it should be part of routine antenatal care. Community midwives felt the intervention could be implemented within routine care without adding substantially to consultation length, thus not perceived as adding substantially to their workload. The intervention was feasible and acceptable to pregnant women and community midwives and was readily implemented in routine care. ISRCTN81605162.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 90 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Researcher 8 9%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 18%
Psychology 13 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 26 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 October 2015.
All research outputs
#7,310,083
of 25,307,332 outputs
Outputs from BMC Obesity
#74
of 187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,298
of 251,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Obesity
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,307,332 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 251,325 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 72% of its contemporaries.