SynthesisCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2010
Effect of antenatal peer support on breastfeeding initiation: a systematic review.
Synthesis in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A realist review of one-to-one breastfeeding peer support experiments conducted in developed country settings.Maternal & child nutrition · 2018Pooled it
- Video-Based Peer Support and Exclusive Breastfeeding and Maternal Self-Efficacy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Peer support intervention (ABA-feed) to improve breastfeeding: UK based, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Breastfeeding peer support by telephone in the RUBY randomised controlled trial: A qualitative exploration of volunteers' experiences.PloS one · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Telephone peer counseling of breastfeeding among WIC participants: a randomized controlled trial.Pediatrics · 2014Trial
- An overview of reviews of breastfeeding barriers and facilitators: Analyzing global research trends and hotspots.Global epidemiology · 2025Review
- The ABA intervention for improving breastfeeding initiation and continuation: Feasibility study results.Maternal & child nutrition · 2020Article
- Health education strategies targeting maternal and child health: A scoping review of educational methodologies.Medicine · 2019Article
- Development of a novel motivational interviewing (MI) informed peer-support intervention to support mothers to breastfeed for longer.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- Peer support of complex health behaviors in prevention and disease management with special reference to diabetes: systematic reviews.Clinical diabetes and endocrinology · 2017Review
- What health service support do families need for optimal breastfeeding? An in-depth exploration of young infant feeding practices in Cambodia.International journal of women's health · 2015Article
- A mixed methods evaluation of peer support in Bristol, UK: mothers', midwives' and peer supporters' views and the effects on breastfeeding.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur objective was to examine the effect of antenatal peer support on rates of breastfeeding initiation.
methodsWe performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized trials and cohort studies with concurrent controls. We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the National Research Register and the British Nursing Index from inception or from 1980 to 2009. We carried out study selection, data abstraction and quality assessment independently and in duplicate. We defined high-quality studies as those that minimized the risk of at least three of the following types of bias: selection, performance, measurement and attrition bias. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for individual studies and undertook separate meta-analyses for high-quality trials of universal peer support and targeted peer support. We did not include low-quality studies.
resultsWe selected 11 studies, which involved 5445 women in total. Seven of these studies (involving 4416 women in total) evaluated universal peer support, and four studies (involving 1029 women in total) targeted antenatal peer support. In the three high-quality studies of universal peer support, all involving low-income women, the relative risk for not initiating breastfeeding was 0.96 (95% CI 0.76-1.22). In the three high-quality studies of antenatal peer support that targeted women considering breastfeeding, the relative risk for not initiating breastfeeding was 0.64 (95% CI 0.41-0.99).
interpretationUniversal antenatal peer support does not appear to improve rates of breastfeeding initiation, but targeted antenatal peer support may be beneficial. This effect may be related to context, however, so any new peer-support program should undergo concurrent high-quality evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.