↓ Skip to main content

Qualitative website analysis of information on birth after caesarean section

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Qualitative website analysis of information on birth after caesarean section
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12884-015-0614-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerie L. Peddie, Natalie Whitelaw, Grant P. Cumming, Siladitya Bhattacharya, Mairead Black

Abstract

The United Kingdom (UK) caesarean section (CS) rate is largely determined by reluctance to augment trial of labour and vaginal birth. Choice between repeat CS and attempting vaginal birth after CS (VBAC) in the next pregnancy is challenging, with neither offering clear safety advantages. Women may access online information during the decision-making process. Such information is known to vary in its support for either mode of birth when assessed quantitatively. Therefore, we sought to explore qualitatively, the content and presentation of web-based health care information on birth after caesarean section (CS) in order to identify the dominant messages being conveyed. The search engine Google™ was used to conduct an internet search using terms relating to birth after CS. The ten most frequently returned websites meeting relevant purposive sampling criteria were analysed. Sampling criteria were based upon funding source, authorship and intended audience. Images and written textual content together with presence of links to additional media or external web content were analysed using descriptive and thematic analyses respectively. Ten websites were analysed: five funded by Government bodies or professional membership; one via charitable donations, and four funded commercially. All sites compared the advantages and disadvantages of both repeat CS and VBAC. Commercially funded websites favoured a question and answer format alongside images, 'pop-ups', social media forum links and hyperlinks to third-party sites. The relationship between the parent sites and those being linked to may not be readily apparent to users, risking perception of endorsement of either VBAC or repeat CS whether intended or otherwise. Websites affiliated with Government or health services presented referenced clinical information in a factual manner with podcasts of real life experiences. Many imply greater support for VBAC than repeat CS although this was predominantly conveyed through subtle use of words rather than overt messages, with the exception of the latter being apparent in one site. Websites providing information on birth after CS appear to vary in nature of content according to their funding source. The most user-friendly, balanced and informative websites appear to be those funded by government agencies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 91 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 18%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 16 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 20%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Psychology 6 7%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 17 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 September 2015.
All research outputs
#15,347,611
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#2,998
of 4,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,227
of 266,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#61
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 266,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.