↓ Skip to main content

HIV and infant feeding in Malawi: public health simplicity in complex social and cultural contexts

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
HIV and infant feeding in Malawi: public health simplicity in complex social and cultural contexts
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-12-700
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacqueline R Chinkonde, Marit Helene Hem, Johanne Sundby

Abstract

The question of when and how to best wean infants born to mothers with HIV requires complex answers. There are clinical guidelines on best approaches but limitations persist when applying them in diverse low-income settings. In such settings, infant-feeding practices are not only dependent on individual women's choices but are also subject to social and cultural pressures. However, when developing infant-feeding policies little attention has been paid to these pressures, even though they may yield useful empirical knowledge on the various forces that shape the infant-feeding dilemmas confronting women with HIV. This study aimed to a) identify the infant-feeding challenges that women with HIV faced when they were advised to wean their children at an early age of six months and b) explore how the women adhered to their infant-feeding options while facing and managing these challenges.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 140 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 20%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 23%
Social Sciences 19 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 31 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 2012.
All research outputs
#5,057,977
of 25,022,483 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,750
of 16,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,146
of 177,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#88
of 332 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,022,483 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 177,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 332 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 73% of its contemporaries.