↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of a sustained nurse home visiting intervention for Aboriginal infants compared with non-Aboriginal infants and with Aboriginal infants receiving usual child health care: a quasi-expe…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
222 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
The effectiveness of a sustained nurse home visiting intervention for Aboriginal infants compared with non-Aboriginal infants and with Aboriginal infants receiving usual child health care: a quasi-experimental trial - the Bulundidi Gudaga study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3394-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynn Kemp, Rebekah Grace, Elizabeth Comino, Lisa Jackson Pulver, Catherine McMahon, Elizabeth Harris, Mark Harris, Ajesh George, Holly A. Mack

Abstract

In Australia there is commitment to developing interventions that will 'Close the Gap' between the health and welfare of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and recognition that early childhood interventions offer the greatest potential for long term change. Nurse led sustained home visiting programs are considered an effective way to deliver a health and parenting service, however there is little international or Australian evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of these programs for Aboriginal infants. This protocol describes the Bulundidi Gudaga Study, a quasi-experimental design, comparing three cohorts of families from the Macarthur region in south western Sydney to explore the effectiveness of the Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting (MECSH) program for Aboriginal families. Mothers were recruited when booking into the local hospital for perinatal care and families are followed up until child is age 4 years. Participants are from three distinct cohorts: Aboriginal MECSH intervention cohort (Group A), Non-Aboriginal MECSH intervention cohort (Group B) and Aboriginal non-intervention cohort (Group C). Eligible mothers were those identified as at risk during the Safe Start assessment conducted by antenatal clinic midwives. Mothers in Group A were eligible if they were pregnant with an Aboriginal infant. Mothers in Group B were eligible if they were pregnant with a non-Aboriginal infant. Mothers in Group C are part of the Gudaga descriptive cohort study and were recruited between October 2005 and May 2007. The difference in duration of breastfeeding, child body mass index, and child development outcomes at 18 months and 4 years of age will be measured as primary outcomes. We will also evaluate the intervention effect on secondary measures including: child dental health; the way the program is received; patterns of child health and illness; patterns of maternal health, health knowledge and behaviours; family and environmental conditions; and service usage for mothers and families. Involving local Aboriginal research and intervention staff and investing in established relationships between the research team and the local Aboriginal community is enabling this study to generate evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions that are feasible to implement and sustainable in the context of Aboriginal communities and local service systems. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001721493 Registered 14 Dec 2016. Retrospectively registered.

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 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 222 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Researcher 20 9%
Student > Master 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 36 16%
Unknown 86 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 18%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Psychology 10 5%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 88 40%
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 05 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,802,560
of 23,302,246 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,627
of 7,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,190
of 331,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#193
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,302,246 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 331,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.