Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25982305›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015

Acceptability of financial incentives for breastfeeding: thematic analysis of readers' comments to UK online news reports.

Emma L Giles, Matthew Holmes, Elaine McColl, Falko F Sniehotta, Jean M Adams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A Mapping Review of Netnography in Nursing.Qualitative health research · 2023
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Chinese News Media Discourse of Doulas and Doula Care.The Journal of perinatal education · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Emma L GilesHealth and Social Care Institute, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, North Yorkshire, TS1 3BA, UK. e.giles@tees.ac.uk.
Matthew HolmesThe Medical School, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, NE2 4HH, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK. m.holmes@ncl.ac.uk.
Elaine McCollInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, The Medical School, Newcastle University, 4th Floor, William Leech Building, Framlington Place, NE2 4HH, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK. elaine.mccoll@ncl.ac.uk.
Falko F SniehottaHealth and Social Care Institute, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, North Yorkshire, TS1 3BA, UK. falko.sniehotta@ncl.ac.uk.
Jean M AdamsCentre for Diet and Activity Research, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Level 3 Institute of Metabolic Science, Addenbrooke's Treatment Centre, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0SL, UK. jma79@medschl.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2011-04-001Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhilst it is recommended that babies are breastfed exclusively for the first six months, many mothers do not maintain breastfeeding for this length of time. Previous research confirms that women and midwives value financial incentives for breastfeeding, but limited research has explored the wider acceptability of these interventions to the general public. This paper examines opinion towards financial incentives for breastfeeding using reader responses to UK on-line media coverage of a study undertaken in this area.

methodsThis study used netnography to undertake a thematic analysis of 3,373 reader comments posted in response to thirteen articles, published in November 2013, which reported findings from a feasibility study of financial incentives for breastfeeding. All articles were published on one of six UK news websites that achieved a monthly audience of at least five million viewers across laptop and desktop computers and mobile devices during April-May 2013.

resultsNine analytical themes were identified, with a majority view that financial incentives for breastfeeding are unacceptable. These themes cover a range of opinions: from negligent parents unable to take responsibility for their own actions; through to psychologically vulnerable members of society who should be protected from coercion and manipulation; to capable and responsible women who can, and should be allowed to, make their own decisions. Many views focused on the immediate costs of the intervention, concluding that this was something that was currently unaffordable to fund (e.g. by the NHS). Others contrasted the value of the incentive against other 'costs' of breastfeeding. There was some consideration of the issue of cost-effectiveness and cost-saving, where the potential future benefit from initial investment was identified. Many commenters identified that financial incentives do not address the many structural and cultural barriers to breastfeeding.

conclusionsOverall, those commenting on the on-line UK news articles viewed financial incentives for breastfeeding as unacceptable and that alternative, structural, interventions were likely to be more effective. Further consideration of how best to conduct internet-based qualitative research to elicit opinion towards public health issues is required.

Indexed as

MotivationBreast FeedingFemaleHealth PromotionHumansInfantInternetMothersPregnancyQualitative ResearchState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID25982305
PMCPMC4475305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.