| Title |
Paediatricians’ Practice About SUDDEN Infant Death Syndrome in Catalonia, Spain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Maternal and 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 25% |
| France | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 15% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 23 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 July 2019.
All research outputs
#5,871,394
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#556
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,264
of 426,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#20
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 426,346 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 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 72% of its contemporaries.