SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016
Interventions for promoting the initiation of breastfeeding.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 17 of them syntheses 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
110 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 459 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of Breastfeeding in Infants With Down Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2026Pooled it
- Teleintervention's effects on breastfeeding in low-income women in high income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International breastfeeding journal · 2024Pooled it
- Mothers' experiences and perceptions of breastfeeding peer support: a qualitative systematic review.International breastfeeding journal · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions for promoting and optimizing breastfeeding practices: An overview of systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Factors that influence women's engagement with breastfeeding support: A qualitative evidence synthesis.Maternal & child nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: a review of education and training courses on breastfeeding support for health professionals.International breastfeeding journal · 2021Pooled it
- Antenatal interventions for preventing stillbirth, fetal loss and perinatal death: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Interventions to promote exclusive breastfeeding among young mothers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International breastfeeding journal · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Interventions for supporting the initiation and continuation of breastfeeding among women who are overweight or obese.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions to improve linear growth during exclusive breastfeeding life-stage for children aged 0-6 months living in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review with network and pairwise meta-analyses.Gates open research · 2019Pooled it
- Exclusive breastfeeding policy, practice and influences in South Africa, 1980 to 2018: A mixed-methods systematic review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Counselling interventions to enable women to initiate and continue breastfeeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International breastfeeding journal · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions during pregnancy to prevent preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Effectiveness of targeting fathers for breastfeeding promotion: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2018Pooled it
- Breastfeeding education and support for women with twins or higher order multiples.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Positive emotion interventions as a non-pharmacological approach to boost colostrum secretion: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Exploring the role of mixed reality education in maternal self efficacy and satisfaction with breastfeeding.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Trial
50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the widely documented risks of not breastfeeding, initiation rates remain relatively low in many high-income countries, particularly among women in lower-income groups. In low- and middle-income countries, many women do not follow World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations to initiate breastfeeding within the first hour after birth. This is an update of a Cochrane Review, first published in 2005.
objectivesTo identify and describe health promotion activities intended to increase the initiation rate of breastfeeding.To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding promotion activities, in terms of changing the number of women who initiate breastfeeding.To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding promotion activities, in terms of changing the number of women who initiate breastfeeding early (within one hour after birth). SEARCH
methodsWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (29 February 2016) and scanned reference lists of all articles obtained. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with or without blinding, of any breastfeeding promotion intervention in any population group, except women and infants with a specific health problem. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial reports for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trial quality. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and a third review author was involved when necessary. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. MAIN
resultsTwenty-eight trials involving 107,362 women in seven countries are included in this updated review. Five studies involving 3,124 women did not contribute outcome data and we excluded them from the analyses. The methodological quality of the included trials was mixed, with significant numbers of studies at high or unclear risk of bias due to: inadequate allocation concealment (N = 20); lack of blinding of outcome assessment (N = 20); incomplete outcome data (N = 19); selective reporting (N = 22) and bias from other potential sources (N = 17). Healthcare professional-led breastfeeding education and support versus standard care The studies pooled here compare professional health workers delivering breastfeeding education and support during the prenatal and postpartum periods with standard care. Interventions included promotion campaigns and counselling, and all took place in a formal setting. There was evidence from five trials involving 564 women for improved rates ofbreastfeeding initiation among women who received healthcare professional-led breastfeeding education and support (average risk ratio (RR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.92; Tau² = 0.07, I² = 62%, low-quality evidence) compared to those women who received standard care. We downgraded evidence due to design limitations and heterogeneity. The outcome of early initiation of breastfeeding was not reported in the studies under this comparison. Non-healthcare professional-led breastfeeding education and support versus standard care There was evidence from eight trials of 5712 women for improved rates of breastfeeding initiation among women who received interventions from non-healthcare professional counsellors and support groups (average RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.40; Tau² = 0.02, I² = 86%, low-quality evidence) compared to women who received standard care. In three trials of 76,373 women, there was no clear difference between groups in terms of the number of women practicing early initiation of breastfeeding (average RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.95; Tau² = 0.18, I² = 78%, very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for a combination of design limitations, heterogeneity and imprecision (wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect). Other comparisonsOther comparisons in this review also looked at the rates of initiation of breastfeeding and there were no clear differences between groups for the following comparisons of combined healthcare professional-led education with peer support or community educator versus standard care (2 studies, 1371 women) or attention control (1 study, 237 women), breastfeeding education using multimedia (a self-help manual or a video) versus routine care (2 studies, 497 women); early mother-infant contact versus standard care (2 studies, 309 women); and community-based breastfeeding groups versus no breastfeeding groups (1 study, 18,603 women). None of these comparisons reported data on early initiation of breastfeeding. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThis review found low-quality evidence that healthcare professional-led breastfeeding education and non-healthcare professional-led counselling and peer support interventions can result in some improvements in the number of women beginning to breastfeed. The majority of the trials were conducted in the USA, among women on low incomes and who varied in ethnicity and feeding intention, thus limiting the generalisability of these results to other settings.Future studies would ideally be conducted in a range of low- and high-income settings, with data on breastfeeding rates over various timeframes, and explore the effectiveness of interventions that are initiated prior to conception or during pregnancy. These might include well-described interventions, including health education, early and continuing mother-infant contact, and initiatives to help mothers overcome societal barriers to breastfeeding, all with clearly defined outcome measures.
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.