Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2004
Modelling consultation rates in infancy: influence of maternal and infant characteristics, feeding type and consultation history.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modelling consultation rates in infancy: influence of maternal and infant characteristics, feeding type and consultation history.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004Trial
- Levelling up health in the early years: A cost-analysis of infant feeding and healthcare.PloS one · 2024Article
- Peer support for breastfeeding in the UK.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeverity of illness, sociodemographic factors, and breastfeeding have been identified as predictors of consultation rates in infants, and prescriptions for antibiotics have been found to increase future consultation rates in older children. The Baby Check trial (1996-1998) provided detailed information about consultations for 935 babies during their first 6 months.
aimsTo investigate potential predictors of consultation rates in babies. DESIGN OF STUDY: A 6-month cohort study of newborn babies originally enrolled into a randomised controlled trial. Maternal and infant characteristics were collected from hospital discharge records. Primary care consultation data for each baby were collected by case note review.
settingThirteen general practices in Glasgow.
methodMultilevel models were used to analyse the number of consultations for each baby during its first 26 weeks, dependent upon the baby's age, the calendar month, maternal and infant characteristics, and previous consultations.
resultsThe strongest predictors of consultation rates were previous consultations, particularly during the preceding week. Breastfed babies and those with older mothers consulted less often. A multilevel model was better than a fixed effects model, with considerable variation in consultation rates between babies.
conclusionInfants' consultation rates over time can be analysed using multilevel models, if details of primary care consultations are available. These models can incorporate the effects of fixed variables and those that change during the follow-up period. Our findings add to previous research linking breastfeeding with reduced morbidity in infancy, and for that reason breastfeeding should continue to be promoted in primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15296559PMC1324840W2159545417What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.