↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Understanding kangaroo care and its benefits to preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 174)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
17 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 Mendeley
Title
Understanding kangaroo care and its benefits to preterm infants
Published in
Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, March 2015
DOI 10.2147/phmt.s51869
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marsha L Campbell-Yeo, Timothy C Disher, Britney L Benoit, C Celeste Johnston

Abstract

The holding of an infant with ventral skin-to-skin contact typically in an upright position with the swaddled infant on the chest of the parent, is commonly referred to as kangaroo care (KC), due to its simulation of marsupial care. It is recommended that KC, as a feasible, natural, and cost-effective intervention, should be standard of care in the delivery of quality health care for all infants, regardless of geographic location or economic status. Numerous benefits of its use have been reported related to mortality, physiological (thermoregulation, cardiorespiratory stability), behavioral (sleep, breastfeeding duration, and degree of exclusivity) domains, as an effective therapy to relieve procedural pain, and improved neurodevelopment. Yet despite these recommendations and a lack of negative research findings, adoption of KC as a routine clinical practice remains variable and underutilized. Furthermore, uncertainty remains as to whether continuous KC should be recommended in all settings or if there is a critical period of initiation, dose, or duration that is optimal. This review synthesizes current knowledge about the benefits of KC for infants born preterm, highlighting differences and similarities across low and higher resource countries and in a non-pain and pain context. Additionally, implementation considerations and unanswered questions for future research are addressed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 223 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 18%
Student > Bachelor 30 13%
Other 15 7%
Student > Postgraduate 15 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 6%
Other 36 16%
Unknown 73 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 62 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 21%
Psychology 6 3%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 21 9%
Unknown 77 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 26 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,359,607
of 25,639,676 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics
#13
of 174 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,654
of 271,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,639,676 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 174 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 271,616 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them