↓ Skip to main content

Paediatricians’ Practice About SUDDEN Infant Death Syndrome in Catalonia, Spain

Overview of attention for article published in Maternal & Child Health Journal, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Paediatricians’ Practice About SUDDEN Infant Death Syndrome in Catalonia, Spain
Published in
Maternal & Child Health Journal, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10995-016-2225-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Federico de Luca, Esperanza L. Gómez-Durán, Josep Arimany-Manso

Abstract

Background SIDS is the major cause of death among healthy born infants in developed countries. Its causes are still unclear, but its risk can be reduced by implementing some simple active interventions. In Spain, limited attention was given to SIDS by the national healthcare system, and actual data on healthcare professionals' practice on this topic was not available. This study explored for the first time paediatricians' knowledge and practice about SIDS. Methods A cross-sectional survey was carried out between November 2012 and April 2013 in Catalonia, and reached 1202 paediatricians. The response rate was 46%. Results 94% of respondents perceived themselves as qualified for giving advice and recommendations about SIDS to parents, but only 58% recognized the supine position as the safest position and recommended the supine position exclusively to parents. Seniority and 'having received a specific training about SIDS' were detrimental to paediatricians' knowledge. Discussion Efforts should be made in order to improve paediatricians' knowledge and practice about SIDS. Specific refresher trainings are highly recommended, and should especially target paediatricians with higher seniority. These trainings could be provided as optional modules, as we could see that the paediatricians who would most benefit from them are already aware of the need to refresh their knowledge.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 21%
Student > Master 4 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Student > Postgraduate 1 5%
Other 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 6 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 16%
Computer Science 2 11%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 2 11%

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 31 May 2017.
All research outputs
#9,916,347
of 11,194,639 outputs
Outputs from Maternal & Child Health Journal
#1,098
of 1,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,094
of 266,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal & Child Health Journal
#18
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,194,639 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 1,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. 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 266,357 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 19 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.