SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017
Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 298 papers, 24 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.
Novel Approach to Improving Lactation Support Using Mobile Health Technology
The Impact of Breastfeeding Education on Breastfeeding Behavior and the Use of Traditional Practices (An Example From Turkey): A Randomized Controlled Trial
Decreasing the Incidence of Post-partum Type II Diabetes Mellitus in Gestational Diabetes Population- Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
The Effect of Different Breastfeeding Position Education With Lactation Simulation Model on Breastfeeding
Who cites it
298 citing papers in PubMed, 24 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of mHealth Application Interventions to Promote Breastfeeding Amongst Pregnant Women and Postpartum Mothers: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Maternal & child nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- The Impact of Peer Support Through Mobile Health Applications on Breastfeeding Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Maternal & child nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Prevention and management of nipple wound: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Pooled it
- Maternal satisfaction with breastfeeding: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Pooled it
- Nutritional counseling strategies in breastfeeding: a scoping review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Predictors of exclusive breastfeeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International breastfeeding journal · 2025Pooled it
- The effectiveness of real-time telelactation intervention on breastfeeding outcomes among employed mothers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Why do mothers mix milk feed their infants? Results from a systematic review.Nutrition reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Breastfeeding experiences of women with perinatal mental health problems: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Pooled 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
- Interventions for promoting and optimizing breastfeeding practices: An overview of systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Interventions to support the re-establishment of breastfeeding and their application in humanitarian settings: A systematic review.Maternal & child nutrition · 2023Pooled it
- Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Views and experience of breastfeeding in public: A qualitative systematic review.Maternal & child nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- The benefits, challenges and impacts of accessing social media group support for breastfeeding: A systematic review.Maternal & child nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- Factors that influence women's engagement with breastfeeding support: A qualitative evidence synthesis.Maternal & child nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- Essential components of postnatal care - a systematic literature review and development of signal functions to guide monitoring and evaluation.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Pooled it
- Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Maternal & child nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- Non-profit breastfeeding organisations' peer support provision in areas of socio-economic deprivation in the UK: A meta-ethnography.Maternal & child nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- Experiences that influence how trained providers support women with breastfeeding: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
238 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant's diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation.
objectivesTo describe forms of breastfeeding support which have been evaluated in controlled studies, the timing of the interventions and the settings in which they have been used.To examine the effectiveness of different modes of offering similar supportive interventions (for example, whether the support offered was proactive or reactive, face-to-face or over the telephone), and whether interventions containing both antenatal and postnatal elements were more effective than those taking place in the postnatal period alone.To examine the effectiveness of different care providers and (where information was available) training.To explore the interaction between background breastfeeding rates and effectiveness of support. SEARCH
methodsWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (29 February 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN
resultsThis updated review includes 100 trials involving more than 83,246 mother-infant pairs of which 73 studies contribute data (58 individually-randomised trials and 15 cluster-randomised trials). We considered that the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Of the 31 new studies included in this update, 21 provided data for one or more of the primary outcomes. The total number of mother-infant pairs in the 73 studies that contributed data to this review is 74,656 (this total was 56,451 in the previous version of this review). The 73 studies were conducted in 29 countries. Results of the analyses continue to confirm that all forms of extra support analyzed together showed a decrease in cessation of 'any breastfeeding', which includes partial and exclusive breastfeeding (average risk ratio (RR) for stopping any breastfeeding before six months 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 51 studies) and for stopping breastfeeding before four to six weeks (average RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 33 studies). All forms of extra support together also showed a decrease in cessation of exclusive breastfeeding at six months (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence, 46 studies) and at four to six weeks (average RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89; moderate quality, 32 studies). We downgraded evidence to moderate-quality due to very high heterogeneity.We investigated substantial heterogeneity for all four outcomes with subgroup analyses for the following covariates: who delivered care, type of support, timing of support, background breastfeeding rate and number of postnatal contacts. Covariates were not able to explain heterogeneity in general. Though the interaction tests were significant for some analyses, we advise caution in the interpretation of results for subgroups due to the heterogeneity. Extra support by both lay and professionals had a positive impact on breastfeeding outcomes. Several factors may have also improved results for women practising exclusive breastfeeding, such as interventions delivered with a face-to-face component, high background initiation rates of breastfeeding, lay support, and a specific schedule of four to eight contacts. However, because within-group heterogeneity remained high for all of these analyses, we advise caution when making specific conclusions based on subgroup results. We noted no evidence for subgroup differences for the any breastfeeding outcomes. AUTHORS'
conclusionsWhen breastfeeding support is offered to women, the duration and exclusivity of breastfeeding is increased. Characteristics of effective support include: that it is offered as standard by trained personnel during antenatal or postnatal care, that it includes ongoing scheduled visits so that women can predict when support will be available, and that it is tailored to the setting and the needs of the population group. Support is likely to be more effective in settings with high initiation rates. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Strategies that rely mainly on face-to-face support are more likely to succeed with women practising exclusive breastfeeding.
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.