The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
WOmen's Action for Mums and Bubs (WOMB) Trial Protocol: A Non-randomized Stepped Wedge Implementation Trial of Participatory Women's Groups to Improve the Health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mothers and Children in Australia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, March 2020
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00073 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karen Carlisle, Catrina Felton-Busch, Yvonne Cadet-James, Judy Taylor, Ross Bailie, Jane Farmer, Megan Passey, Veronica Matthews, Emily Callander, Rebecca Evans, Janet Kelly, Robyn Preston, Michelle Redman-MacLaren, Haylee Fox, Adrian Esterman, Merrick Zwarenstein, Sarah Larkins |
| Abstract |
Introduction: In Australia, there have been improvements in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander maternal health, however inequities remain. There is increasing international evidence illustrating the effectiveness of Participatory Women's Groups (PWGs) in improving Maternal and Child Health (MCH) outcomes. Using a non-randomized, cluster stepped-wedge implementation of a complex intervention with mixed methods evaluation, this study aims to test the effectiveness of PWGs in improving MCH within Indigenous primary care settings in Australia and how they operate in various contexts. Methods: This study takes place in ten primary health care services across Australia and involves the recruitment of existing PWGs or the setting up of new PWGs. Services are paired based on geography for practical reasons and two services commence the PWG intervention at three monthly intervals, with the initial four services being those with existing women's groups. Implementation of the PWGs as an intervention involves training local facilitators of PWG groups, supported engagement with local MCH data through workshops, PWGs identifying and prioritizing issues and strengths and co-implementing solutions with health services. Outcomes are measured with yearly MCH audits, a cost-effectiveness study, and process evaluation of community participation and empowerment. Discussion: This study is the first to formally implement and quantitatively, yet with contextual awareness, measure the effect of applying a community participation intervention to improve the quality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander MCH in Australia. Findings from this work, including detailed theory-producing qualitative analysis, will produce new knowledge of how to facilitate improved quality of MCH care in Indigenous PHC settings and how to best engage community in driving health care improvements. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12618000945224. Web address: http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12618000945224.aspx. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 22 | 49% |
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 18 March 2020.
All research outputs
#20,609,577
of 23,198,445 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#7,914
of 10,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#313,489
of 367,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#97
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,198,445 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 10,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. 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 367,465 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 143 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.