↓ Skip to main content


Overview of attention for article published in International Breastfeeding Journal, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 166)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

2 news outlets


20 Dimensions

Readers on

43 Mendeley
Published in
International Breastfeeding Journal, January 2006
DOI 10.1186/1746-4358-1-29
Pubmed ID

Magda Sachs, Fiona Dykes, Bernie Carter


Weighing breastfed babies has been the subject of some controversy as the previous international growth chart was largely based on data from infants fed infant formula. The concern that professionals may be misled by the charts into suggesting to mothers that they supplement unnecessarily was a major impetus for the World Health Organization's investment in a new growth chart. Evidence of interpretation in practice has been scant. An ethnographic study was conducted in a town in the Northwest of England to investigate this issue. In the first phase, women and health visitors were observed in the well-child clinic during clinic sessions and breastfeeding group meetings. In the second phase, longitudinal interviews with 14 women were conducted. Each woman was interviewed up to three times in the first six months after the birth of her baby, with a total of 35 interviews. Mothers and health visitors focussed on weight gain with frequent weighing and attention to even minor fluctuations of the plotted line being evident. Women felt it important to ensure their baby's weight followed a centile, and preferred for this to be the fiftieth centile. Interventions included giving infant formula and solids as well as changing what the mother ate and drank. Women also described how they worried about their baby's weight. Little effective support by health professionals with breastfeeding technique was observed. Babies were weighed more often than officially recommended, with weighing and plotting being at the core of each clinic visit. The plotted weight chart exerted a powerful influence on both women's and health visitors' understanding of the adequacy of breastfeeding. They appeared to rate the regular progression of weight gains along the chart centiles more highly than continued or exclusive breastfeeding. Thus weighing and visual charting of weight constituted a form of surveillance under the medical gaze, with mothers actively participating in self monitoring of their babies. Interventions, by mothers and health visitors, were targeted towards increasing weight gain rather than improving breastfeeding effectiveness. Improvements in training are needed for health visitors in weighing techniques, assessing growth patterns--particularly of breastfed babies--and in giving information to women, if the practice of routine weight monitoring is to support rather than undermine breastfeeding.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Master 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 19%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 21%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 6 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 21 September 2015.
All research outputs
of 6,381,123 outputs
Outputs from International Breastfeeding Journal
of 166 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 198,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Breastfeeding Journal
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,381,123 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 166 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 198,419 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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