Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28092057›Full record

ArticleMaternal and child health journal2017

Maternal Nonstandard Work Schedules and Breastfeeding Behaviors.

Afshin Zilanawala

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Afshin ZilanawalaDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. afshin.zilanawala@ucl.ac.uk.
University College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives Although maternal employment rates have increased in the last decade in the UK, there is very little research investigating the linkages between maternal nonstandard work schedules (i.e., work schedules outside of the Monday through Friday, 9-5 schedule) and breastfeeding initiation and duration, especially given the wide literature citing the health advantages of breastfeeding for mothers and children. Methods This paper uses a population-based, UK cohort study, the Millennium Cohort Study (n = 17,397), to investigate the association between types of maternal nonstandard work (evening, night, away from home overnight, and weekends) and breastfeeding behaviors. Results In unadjusted models, exposure to evening shifts was associated with greater odds of breastfeeding initiation (OR 1.71, CI 1.50-1.94) and greater odds of short (OR 1.55, CI 1.32-1.81), intermediate (OR 2.01, CI 1.64-2.47), prolonged partial duration (OR 2.20, CI 1.78-2.72), and prolonged exclusive duration (OR 1.53, CI 1.29-1.82), compared with mothers who were unemployed and those who work other types of nonstandard shifts. Socioeconomic advantage of mothers working evening schedules largely explained the higher odds of breastfeeding initiation and duration. Conclusions Socioeconomic characteristics explain more breastfeeding behaviors among mothers working evening shifts. Policy interventions to increase breastfeeding initiation and duration should consider the timing of maternal work schedules.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingEmploymentWomen, WorkingWork Schedule ToleranceAdultChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInfantLongitudinal StudiesMaleMother-Child RelationsMothersBreastfeedingCohort studiesMaternal employmentNonstandard work

Identifiers

PMID28092057
PMCPMC5443849
OpenAlexW2575329647

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.