Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24394963›Full record

ArticleJournal of human lactation : official journal of International Lactation Consultant Association2014

Using benchmarking techniques and the 2011 maternity practices infant nutrition and care (mPINC) survey to improve performance among peer groups across the United States.

Roger A Edwards, Deborah Dee, Amna Umer, Cria G Perrine, Katherine R Shealy, Laurence M Grummer-Strawn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of human lactation : official journal of International Lactation Consultant Association, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Breastfeeding Supportive Hospital Practices in the US Differ by County Urbanization Level.Journal of human lactation : official journal of International Lactation Consultant Association · 2015
    Article
  2. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Roger A Edwards1Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Deborah Dee
Amna Umer
Cria G Perrine
Katherine R Shealy
Laurence M Grummer-Strawn
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USNortheastern University · USWest Virginia University · US

Funding

Nutrition Sciences and HealthT32DK007734 · NIDDK · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI RAMAKRISHNAN, USHA · 1997 to 2016
$2.5M
Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK007734
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA substantial proportion of US maternity care facilities engage in practices that are not evidence-based and that interfere with breastfeeding. The CDC Survey of Maternity Practices in Infant Nutrition and Care (mPINC) showed significant variation in maternity practices among US states.

objectiveThe purpose of this article is to use benchmarking techniques to identify states within relevant peer groups that were top performers on mPINC survey indicators related to breastfeeding support.

methodsWe used 11 indicators of breastfeeding-related maternity care from the 2011 mPINC survey and benchmarking techniques to organize and compare hospital-based maternity practices across the 50 states and Washington, DC. We created peer categories for benchmarking first by region (grouping states by West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) and then by size (grouping states by the number of maternity facilities and dividing each region into approximately equal halves based on the number of facilities).

resultsThirty-four states had scores high enough to serve as benchmarks, and 32 states had scores low enough to reflect the lowest score gap from the benchmark on at least 1 indicator. No state served as the benchmark on more than 5 indicators and no state was furthest from the benchmark on more than 7 indicators. The small peer group benchmarks in the South, West, and Midwest were better than the large peer group benchmarks on 91%, 82%, and 36% of the indicators, respectively. In the West large, the Midwest large, the Midwest small, and the South large peer groups, 4-6 benchmarks showed that less than 50% of hospitals have ideal practice in all states.

conclusionThe evaluation presents benchmarks for peer group state comparisons that provide potential and feasible targets for improvement.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingBreast FeedingQuality ImprovementFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansInfant, NewbornPeer GroupPostnatal CareQuality Indicators, Health CareUnited Statesassessmentbenchmarkbreastfeedinghospital practicesmaternityquality improvementUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24394963
PMCPMC4546102
OpenAlexW2024078315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.