↓ Skip to main content

Maternal kisses are not effective in alleviating minor childhood injuries (boo‐boos): a randomized, controlled and blinded study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 1,532)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
twitter
668 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
34 Facebook pages
googleplus
10 Google+ users
reddit
9 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Maternal kisses are not effective in alleviating minor childhood injuries (boo‐boos): a randomized, controlled and blinded study
Published in
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, December 2015
DOI 10.1111/jep.12508
Pubmed ID
Authors

The Study of Maternal and Child Kissing Working Group

Abstract

The practice of maternal kissing of minor injuries of childhood (boo-boos), though widely endorsed and practised, has never been demonstrated to be of benefit to children. To determine the efficacy, if any, of maternal kissing of boo-boos in toddlers. Randomized, controlled and double-blinded study of children with experimentally induced minor injuries. Control arms included both no intervention group and 'sham' (non-maternal) kissing. Children were blinded to the identity of the kisser in both the maternal and sham control groups. Outpatient research clinics in Ottawa, Canada. 943 maternal-toddler pairs recruited from the community. Toddler Discomfort Index (TDI) pre-injury, 1 and 5 minutes post-injury. One-minute and 5-minute TDI scores did not differ significantly between the maternal and sham kiss groups. Both of these groups had significantly higher TDI scores at 5 minutes compared to the no intervention group. Maternal kissing of boo-boos confers no benefit on children with minor traumatic injuries compared to both no intervention and sham kissing. In fact, children in the maternal kissing group were significantly more distressed at 5 minutes than were children in the no intervention group. The practice of maternal kissing of boo-boos is not supported by the evidence and we recommend a moratorium on the practice.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 668 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
France 3 3%
Ukraine 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 80 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 21 24%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 23%
Psychology 7 8%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Other 23 26%
Unknown 21 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 595. 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 06 April 2024.
All research outputs
#41,611
of 26,238,951 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#2
of 1,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#502
of 402,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,238,951 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,532 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 402,605 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.