ArticleBreastfeeding medicine : the official journal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine2012
Perceptions of primary care-based breastfeeding promotion interventions: qualitative analysis of randomized controlled trial participant interviews.
Article in Breastfeeding medicine : the official journal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of primary care intervention on breastfeeding duration and intensity.American journal of public health · 2014Trial
- Women's perceptions of breastfeeding barriers in early postpartum period: a qualitative analysis nested in two randomized controlled trials.Breastfeeding medicine : the official journal of the Academy of Breastfeeding MedicineTrial
- ABM Clinical Protocol #19: Breastfeeding Promotion in the Prenatal Setting, Revision 2015.Breastfeeding medicine : the official journal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine · 2015Article
- Recruiting and retaining low-income, multi-ethnic women into randomized controlled trials: successful strategies and staffing.Contemporary clinical trials · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study examined women's perceptions and reported effects of routine, primary care-based interventions to increase breastfeeding. SUBJECTS AND
methodsA subsample (n=67) of participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) completed semistructured exit interviews at 6 months postpartum. RCT arms included the following: (a) routine pre-/postnatal lactation consultant (LC) support (LC group); (b) electronic prompts (EP) guiding providers to discuss breastfeeding during prenatal care visits (EP group); (c) a combined intervention (LC+EP group); and (d) controls. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed in MAX.qda.
resultsKey findings included the following: (1) Brief, non-directive assessment of feeding via postpartum interviews focused attention upon feeding practices. When coupled with breastfeeding promotion interventions, interviews promoted breastfeeding. (2) The EP and LC interventions were complementary: EPs influenced initiation, while LCs helped overcome barriers and sustain breastfeeding. (3) Prenatal intent to feed both breastmilk and formula was associated with the greatest receptivity to study messages.
conclusionsFindings underscore the need for interventions across the continuum of care. Trained LCs in prenatal/postpartum settings and prenatal care providers play important complementary roles that, when coupled with brief telephone feeding assessments, may improve breastfeeding rates.
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.