Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23183112›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2012

Healthcare professionals' and mothers' knowledge of, attitudes to and experiences with, Baby-Led Weaning: a content analysis study.

Sonya Lynne Cameron, Anne-Louise Mary Heath, Rachael Waring Taylor

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Adherence to different methods for introducing complementary food to 7-month-old babies: a randomized clinical trial.Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo · 2022
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sonya Lynne CameronDepartment of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Anne-Louise Mary Heath
Rachael Waring Taylor
University of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveBaby-Led Weaning (BLW) is an alternative approach for introducing complementary foods to infants that emphasises infant self-feeding rather than adult spoon-feeding. Here we examined healthcare professionals' and mothers' knowledge of, attitudes to and experiences with, BLW. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsHealthcare professionals (n=31) and mothers who had used BLW (n=20) completed a semistructured interview using one of two tailored interview schedules examining their knowledge of, attitudes to and experiences with, BLW. Interview notes and transcripts were analysed using content analysis to identify subcategories and extract illustrative quotes.

resultsHealthcare professionals had limited direct experience with BLW and the main concerns raised were the potential for increased risk of choking, iron deficiency and inadequate energy intake. Although they suggested a number of potential benefits of BLW (greater opportunity for shared family meal times, fewer mealtime battles, healthier eating behaviours, greater convenience and possible developmental advantages) most felt reluctant to recommend BLW because of their concern about the potential increased risk of choking. In contrast, mothers who had used this style of feeding reported no major concerns with BLW. They considered BLW to be a healthier, more convenient and less stressful way to introduce complementary foods to their infant and recommended this feeding approach to other mothers. Although mothers did not report being concerned about choking, 30% reported at least one choking episode-most commonly with raw apple.

conclusionsGiven the lack of research on BLW, further work is needed to determine whether the concerns expressed by healthcare professionals and potential benefits outlined by mothers are valid. The current study suggests that there is a mismatch between healthcare professionals' and mothers' knowledge of, attitudes to and experiences, with BLW.

Identifiers

PMID23183112
PMCPMC3532980
OpenAlexW2112219381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.