↓ Skip to main content

Effect of flick application on pain level and duration of crying during infant vaccination

Overview of attention for article published in Italian Journal of Pediatrics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Effect of flick application on pain level and duration of crying during infant vaccination
Published in
Italian Journal of Pediatrics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13052-016-0218-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esra Karaca Ciftci, Funda Kardas Ozdemir, Diler Aydın

Abstract

The aim of the research is to determine the effect of flick application to reduce pain on pain level and duration of crying during vaccination. This research was carried out on one-month-old babies in a family health center between March and June 2015. The babies coming for the second dose of Hepatitis B vaccine were divided into experiment and control groups. The babies in experiment group were flicked just before they were vaccinated. On the other hand, the babies in control group were vaccinated in usual way, with no other application. The pain level of babies in both groups was determined using "Neonatal Infant Pain Scale". In addition, babies' duration of crying was recorded. In the study, it was detected that there was not a significant difference between pain score averages of babies in experiment and control groups (p > 0.05) before the application, however a significant difference in pain score average was detected during the application (p < 0.01) and after the application (p < 0.001). Babies' duration of crying was compared and it was determined that babies in experiment group cried for shorter period, but no relevance was found (p > 0.05). Flick application at vaccination area could be used to reduce pain during vaccination at babies.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 5 7%
Professor 3 4%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 21 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 25 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 23 34%

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 25 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,302,535
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#761
of 940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,613
of 393,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#19
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 940 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 393,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.