Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28167998›Full record

ReviewInternational breastfeeding journal2016

Education and training of healthcare staff in the knowledge, attitudes and skills needed to work effectively with breastfeeding women: a systematic review.

Anna Gavine, Steve MacGillivray, Mary J Renfrew, Lindsay Siebelt, Haggi Haggi, Alison McFadden

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International breastfeeding journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Breastfeeding interventions for preventing postpartum depression.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Anna GavineEvidence Synthesis Training and Research Group, School of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3750-2445
Steve MacGillivrayEvidence Synthesis Training and Research Group, School of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Mary J RenfrewMother and Infant Research Unit, School of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Lindsay SiebeltMother and Infant Research Unit, School of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Haggi HaggiMother and Infant Research Unit, School of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Alison McFaddenMother and Infant Research Unit, School of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent evidence suggests that women need effective support to breastfeed, but many healthcare staff lack the necessary knowledge, attitudes and skills. There is therefore a need for breastfeeding education and training for healthcare staff. The primary aim of this review is to determine whether education and training programs for healthcare staff have an effect on their knowledge and attitudes about supporting breastfeeding women. The secondary aim of this review was to identify whether any differences in type of training or discipline of staff mattered.

methodsA systematic search of the literature was conducted using the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's trial register. Randomised controlled trials comparing breastfeeding education and training for healthcare staff with no or usual training and education were included if they measured the impact on staff knowledge, attitudes or compliance with the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI).

resultsFrom the 1192 reports identified, four distinct studies were included. Three studies were two-arm cluster-randomised trials and one was a two-arm individual randomised trial. Of these, three contributed quantitative data from a total of 250 participants. Due to heterogeneity of outcome measures meta-analysis was not possible. Knowledge was included as an outcome in two studies and demonstrated small but significant positive effects. Attitudes towards breastfeeding was included as an outcome in two studies, however, results were inconsistent both in terms of how they were measured and the intervention effects. One study reported a small but significant positive effect on BFHI compliance. Study quality was generally deemed low with the majority of domains being judged as high or unclear risk of bias.

conclusionsThis review identified a lack of good evidence on breastfeeding education and training for healthcare staff. There is therefore a critical need for research to address breastfeeding education and training needs of multidisciplinary healthcare staff in different contexts through large, well-conducted RCTs.

Indexed as

AttitudesBreastfeedingEducationHealthcare staffKnowledgeSupportTraining

Identifiers

PMID28167998
PMCPMC5288894

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.