| Title |
Boo‐boo kissing
|
|---|---|
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 828 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 226 | 27% |
| United Kingdom | 68 | 8% |
| Australia | 33 | 4% |
| Canada | 28 | 3% |
| Spain | 19 | 2% |
| France | 12 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 11 | 1% |
| Germany | 11 | 1% |
| Sweden | 11 | 1% |
| Other | 85 | 10% |
| Unknown | 324 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 590 | 71% |
| Scientists | 151 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 63 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 24 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 4% |
| France | 3 | 4% |
| Ukraine | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 15% |
| Researcher | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 25% |
| Unknown | 13 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 24% |
| Psychology | 7 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 26% |
| Unknown | 19 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 707. 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
#29,805
of 25,863,888 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#2
of 1,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#363
of 401,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#1
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,863,888 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 1,576 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 401,628 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 21 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.