Partner violence in healthcare settings on breastfeeding mothers: a scientometric analysis

Data collection and annual publications

A total of 415 articles peer review were derived from Scopus database from 1977-2022.

Most productive regions and countries

A multitude of countries have rendered significant scholarly contributions to the field of Partner Violence in Healthcare Settings, particularly impacting Breastfeeding Mothers, spanning a period from 1977 to 2022 (Figure 1). This segment meticulously elucidates the scholarly output of the predominant countries in this specified domain. Table 2 delineates the data pertaining to the top ten countries that have immersed themselves in publishing research related to Partner Violence in Healthcare Settings on Breastfeeding Mothers. The rankings have been meticulously formulated based on the numerical count of publications.

Figure 1. Shows the annual publication trend for articles related to partner violence and its impact on breastfeeding mothers in healthcare settings, identified from the Scopus database (Wahyutri, 2023).

The graph illustrates the number of articles published each year from 1977 to 2022. It highlights an overall increase in publications over time, with a peak in 2021.

The tabulated data elucidates that the United States emerges as the pinnacle of scholarly productivity in this domain, boasting 167 publications, thereby reflecting a pronounced emphasis by its academic community on Partner Violence in Healthcare Settings affecting Breastfeeding Mothers. Following in scholarly prominence, Australia secures the second position with 43 publications, while the United Kingdom also asserts its presence significantly, albeit with an unspecified number of publications. Noteworthy is the absence of Asian nations within the rank delineation, revealing a potential geographical disparity in research concentration.

Bibliometric coupling (BC) elucidates network dynamics among nations researching Partner Violence in Healthcare Settings, especially its impact on Breastfeeding Mothers. When two documents cite a third, BC occurs, revealing an implicit scholarly connection. Figure 2 visually displays this, where each circle represents a nation and its size indicates scholarly contribution; notably, the United States emerges as significantly contributive (Bair-Merritt et al., 2014; Normandin, 2015; Hill et al., 2016; Sood et al., 2016; Messing et al., 2017; Hooker et al., 2020).

Figure 2. BC of countries.

The examination of interlinkages among international authors can be explored via a co-authorship analysis, segmented by governments. Figure 3 illustrates these collaborative research efforts related to Partner Violence and its impact on Breastfeeding Mothers. The figure highlights the network and various collaborative threads with different colors, with the United States notably establishing robust co-authorship networks, signifying substantial collaborations with authors from various nations (Al-Natour et al., 2014; Scheid et al., 2020; Uysal et al., 2022).

Figure 3. Co-authorship among countries.

Universities and Institutes with the most significant number of publications

Another cardinal element of bibliometric analysis focuses on identifying the most productive academic institutions. Table 4 reveals that UNSW Sydney in Australia is the most productive institution, with eleven publications to its name. Western Sydney University and Universidade de São Paulo assume the second and third ranks, with nine and eight publications, respectively. In instances of tied rankings, authors are stratified based on the cumulative citation count of their publications.

Top 10 productive sources of publications

The journal JOGNN - Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing surfaces as the most productive outlet with 17 publications, succeeded by Midwifery with 15 publications. Table 5 encapsulates journal productivity, detailed in terms of publication count on Partner Violence in Healthcare Settings impacting Breastfeeding Mothers across all researchers. Five journals originate from a UK-based publisher and a US-based publisher, while seven journals amongst the top ten are categorized as Q1 journals.

Top 10 productive authors

Table 6 delineates author productivity, defined in terms of authors and their affiliations, the number of publications, citation counts, and total citations per publication. Schmied, affiliated with Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia, emerges as the author with the most substantial volume of articles, totaling five, and accruing 125 citations.

The most-cited publication

Identifying highly-cited sources is crucial for assessing authors, journals, and papers. Using data from the Scopus database and ‘Partner Violence in Healthcare Settings on Breastfeeding Mothers’ as a search term, a collection of significant publications was compiled. Table 7 presents those exceeding 200 citations, spotlighting the most-cited publication in this section.

Three field Plot

A three-field Plot (Sankey diagram) showing the network between original articles on ‘Partner Violence in Healthcare Settings on Breastfeeding Mothers’ from 1977 to 2022.

Visualizing the flow from authors to affiliations and then to keywords might provide insight into which affiliations are producing research on which topics (Figure 4).

Figure 4. A three-field Plot Author - Affiliation – Keywords.

Figure 5 visualizing the flow from journals to keywords and then to countries might provide insights into the kinds of research being published in different journals and where that research is being conducted.

Figure 5. A three-field Plot Journal - Keywords – Countries.

Scientometric main information

Author delved into the topic of “Partner Violence in Healthcare Settings on Breastfeeding Mothers” from 1977 to 2022 and uncovered substantial insights from 415 scientific documents gathered from 259 various sources like journals and books. The topic has been gradually growing over time, with an annual growth rate of about 6.36%, signaling that researchers are increasingly exploring it. Observing the average document age of approximately 14.8 years and an average citation per document of about 26.71, it’s evident that research in this field is not only ongoing but also making a significant impact in the scientific community (Table 8).

The average age of the documents being 14.8 years with the relatively high average citation per document, standing at 26.71, underscored the enduring relevance and impact of the existing literature. Furthermore, the substantial amount of references, totaling 11,686, and the prolific use of keywords (2,685 Keywords Plus and 823 Author’s Keywords) mirror the depth and complexity of the discourse. Diving into the authorship and collaboration patterns, the data indicates a notable engagement of 1,651 authors, with a commendable emphasis on collaborative research as evinced by the average of 4.29 co-authors per document and an international co-authorship percentage of 11.81%. This analysis provides a panoramic view of the research conducted regarding the impact of partner violence on breastfeeding mothers in healthcare settings. This information is crucial to deepening our understanding and potentially discovering new areas to explore further in future research.

In the intricacies of academic discourse where knowledge dissemination is paramount, the exploration of thematic occurrences within scholarly publications becomes pivotal. The provided dataset unveils a multitude of research topics, accompanied by their respective frequencies and temporally-oriented quantifiers, including the first quartile, median, and third quartile of publication years. A myriad of topics such as “domestic violence,” “nursing,” “pregnancy,” “breastfeeding,” and “intimate partner violence" emerge as notably predominant, signaling a substantive focus on humanitarian and child welfare within the academic sphere (Williams et al., 2017; McGarry, 2017; Örmon et al., 2017; Ogbo et al., 2019). Additionally, themes enveloping “stress” and “depression” underscore a robust engagement with mental health discourse (Lepistö et al., 2017) (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Trend topics.

Within this context, a multifaceted examination of violence and maltreatment is palpable through the prevalence of themes like “domestic violence,” “aggression,” and “mistreatment.” Concurrently, the academic lens is also distinctly cast upon healthcare provision, illustrated by the recurrent emergence of topics such as “nursing” and “midwifery.” Furthermore, the appearance of “HIV” and “Women’s health” within the dataset indicates a scholarly inclination toward discussions pertaining to sexual and reproductive health, while the recent emergence of “Covid-19” in 2022 embodies the academe’s response to the prevailing global health crisis.

Navigating through the temporal dimensions of the data, “Child abuse” elucidates an enduring relevance. It spanning from 1998 to 2016, so thereby showcasing its longstanding and potentially evolving scholarly exploration. Contrarily, topics like “Quality of care” and “Childbirth” manifest a more recent relevance, with medians and third quartiles firmly situated in 2022, indicating a shift toward contemporary issues within the field.

Conducting a historical analysis of topics could unveil shifts in research priorities and intricate inter-topical relationships through co-occurrence or network analysis (Lepistö et al., 2017; Sprague et al., 2017). Linking topics to impact metrics, like citations, and if possible, geographical data, might offer insight into research influence, regional patterns, or global collaborations. Detailed textual analysis could contextualize these topics within academic discussions and highlight prevailing theoretical frameworks.

The co-occurrence network, illuminated by the authors’ keywords and analyzed through the biblioshiny app in the bibliometrix environment (De Moraes et al., 2017) (Figure 7). The co-occurrence network analysis using author’s keywords showcases significant and interlinked topics within a specific research domain. An analysis of the bibliometric data, extracted via the Biblioshiny application, reveals insights into the interconnected thematic areas in the body of literature related to women’s health, violence, and related healthcare contexts.

Figure 7. Co-occurrence network.

Two main themes, Intimate Partner Violence/Domestic Violence and Nursing/Pregnancy, emerge prominently in the research (Olive, 2007; Reisenhofer & Seibold, 2013; Crombie et al., 2017; Ahmad et al., 2017). The former plays a pivotal role, acting as major connectors in the network and potentially tying research on personal relationship violence to various sub-themes (Ferri et al., 2016). Meanwhile, Nursing and Pregnancy themes underline a robust research focus on healthcare provision and pregnancy-related issues, exploring practices and challenges in these areas (McKinley et al., 2019; Van Niel et al., 2020). Table 9 analyzes key themes and characteristics within the co-occurrence network.

The biblioshiny-assisted co-occurrence network analysis identifies seven key clusters within women’s health research. The Violence and Screening cluster focuses on exploring and intervening in violent scenarios. Healthcare Contexts and Substance Abuse delve into management and mitigation strategies in healthcare settings, particularly concerning violence and substance abuse in nursing and emergency departments. Pregnancy and Mental Health emphasize the intertwined relationship of mental health, particularly depression, with pregnancy and abuse. The Breastfeeding within the HIV Context cluster potentially provides insights into guidelines and challenges affecting maternal and child health (Haber et al., 2021). Childbirth and Healthcare Quality, especially in the Covid-19 context, explore impacts and shifts in practices and provider roles during the pandemic (Vrazo et al., 2020). The Nursing Profession and Women’s Issues cluster spotlight the multifaceted role of nurses in navigating challenges and interventions in women’s health. Lastly, Women’s Health and Violence focus on the broad explorations in women’s health, zooming in on violence and its diverse impacts and management strategies in healthcare.

Moreover, “Depression” and “HIV” stand out as niche themes, potentially providing in-depth insights into specific aspects of broader themes (Mpody et al., 2019; Myburgh et al., 2020; Hampanda et al., 2021). “Covid-19” emerges as a pivotal theme, likely dissecting the pandemic’s diverse impacts on women’s health and healthcare provision, intersecting with various thematic clusters (Janevic et al., 2021). The interplay of these themes offers a nuanced understanding of the domain, showcasing the interconnectedness of various aspects of women’s health and well-being (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Thematic map of the journal.

The thematic map and clusters reveal a multifaceted academic dialogue where themes intersect and evolve, shaping a nuanced scholarly narrative. The Biblioshiny package in RStudio, using a minimum frequency of three per thousand words, helps navigate through the complex thematic map, witnessing the convergence and divergence of themes, each reflecting different scholarly facets. The objective is to interpret thematic clusters, discerning their centrality and prominence within the academic environment.

Basic themes like “Substance use disorder,” “Substance abuse,” “Breastfeeding,” and “Pregnancy” act as foundational pillars in the research (Bogen & Whalen, 2019; Yonke et al., 2019). These themes exploring dynamics in their respective domains and serving as connectors to various themes, providing a comprehensive exploration of related topics. Specifically, “Breastfeeding” and “Pregnancy” are crucial in discussing maternal health and wellbeing in the primary article’s context.

Motor themes, including “Gender-based violence” and “Domestic violence,” serve as core themes that shape the discourse, navigating through various health, socio-legal, and psychological dimensions. This themes especially exploring the intersections and impacts of violence within healthcare and maternal contexts (Martin-de-las-Heras, et al. 2019). “Domestic violence,” with high Callon Centrality and cluster frequency, acts as a cardinal node, influencing and being influenced by various thematic dynamics (Kalra et al., 2021).

Themes like “Child protective service” and “Australia” indicate areas of emerging or receding research focus, with geographical and socio-cultural contexts shaping these themes. “Australia” points to region-specific dynamics (Dawson et al., 2019; Hooker et al., 2020; Coupland et al., 2021). “Depression” might indicate a broader discourse intersecting mental and maternal health, and experiences of violence (Dodge et al., 2019; Janevic et al., 2021).

Niche themes such as “Inpatients” and “HIV” explore specific healthcare settings and medical contexts, while “Intimate partner abuse” and “Adolescents” explore specific demographic and relational dimensions within the broader health and violence discourse (Rujumba et al., 2021). The collective themes craft a multifaceted narrative, intertwining aspects of health, violence, demographics, and potentially, geographical and socio-cultural dynamics, potentially hinting at future research trajectories and evolving contexts in this domain. Further exploration could provide deeper insights into the complexities and nuances embedded within this academic discourse.

Limitation

This research faced several limitations requiring acknowledgment. Firstly, relying solely on the Scopus database and English-language articles may introduce selection bias, potentially overlooking valuable insights from non-English research and limiting the study’s cultural and geographical scope. Additionally, the use of keyword-based search strategies might omit relevant studies using different terminologies. The defined time frame until 2022 could exclude the newest research developments, and while VOSviewer and RStudio are robust for bibliometric analysis, they may not fully decipher complex data patterns. Moreover, scientometric and bibliometric analyses’ inherent biases could undervalue contributions from emerging researchers or institutions in low/middle-income countries. Lastly, the quantitative focus might miss the qualitative depth and contextual nuances intrinsic to partner violence impacting breastfeeding mothers in healthcare settings. Future research could navigate these limitations by diversifying data sources, incorporating multilingual studies, and employing both quantitative and qualitative analyses for a more holistic exploration of the domain.