↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Health provider experiences with galactagogues to support breastfeeding: a cross-sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Health provider experiences with galactagogues to support breastfeeding: a cross-sectional survey
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, November 2016
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s121788
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandra N Bazzano, Lisa Littrell, Amelia Brandt, Shelley Thibeau, Kamala Thriemer, Katherine P Theall

Abstract

Exclusive breastfeeding for infants up to 6 months is widely recommended, yet breastfeeding rates are relatively low in the US. The most common reason women stop breastfeeding early is a perceived insufficiency of milk. Galactagogues are herbal and pharmaceutical products that can help increase milk supply; however, data on their efficacy and safety is limited. Lactation consultants, obstetricians, and other health providers are an important point of contact for breastfeeding women experiencing challenges with lactation. This study explored providers' perceptions, experiences, and practices in relation to galactagogue recommendation. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among a convenience sample of English-speaking health providers in the US who counsel breastfeeding women and their infants. More than 70% of respondents reported to recommend galactagogues. The most frequently recommended galactagogue was fenugreek with respondents indicating that they recommend it either 'always' (8.5%) or 'most of the time' (14.9%) and 'sometimes' (46.8%). More than 80% of the respondents indicated that galactagogues were useful for their clients and only one-third reported side effects. Reasons for refraining from recommending galactagogues were insufficient evidence of its efficacy and safety. Respondents reported a wide variety of sources of information used for their own education about galactagogues. Despite little evidence regarding safety and efficacy, some galactagogues are widely recommended and often perceived to be useful. However, concerns about their efficacy and safety remain. In order to assure both providers and users about safety and efficacy, more robust studies as well as better pharmacovigilance systems are needed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 20 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 21 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 November 2021.
All research outputs
#4,572,696
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#178
of 1,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,232
of 317,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 317,808 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.