Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28958169›Full record

ArticleFood and nutrition bulletin2017

Recommendations for Infant Feeding Policy and Programs in Dzimauli Region, South Africa: Results From the MAL-ED Birth Cohort.

Lindelani Fhumudzani Mushaphi, Tjale Cloupas Mahopo, Cebisa Noxolo Nesamvuni, Brenda Baloyi, Ellen Mashau, Jeniata Richardson, Rebecca Dillingham, Richard Guerrant, Ramya Ambikapathi, Pascal Bessong

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Food and nutrition bulletin, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lindelani Fhumudzani Mushaphi1 Department of Nutrition, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, Limpopo Province, South Africa.
Tjale Cloupas Mahopo1 Department of Nutrition, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, Limpopo Province, South Africa.
Cebisa Noxolo Nesamvuni1 Department of Nutrition, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, Limpopo Province, South Africa.
Brenda Baloyi1 Department of Nutrition, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, Limpopo Province, South Africa.
Ellen Mashau1 Department of Nutrition, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, Limpopo Province, South Africa.
Jeniata Richardson2 Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Rebecca Dillingham2 Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Richard Guerrant2 Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Ramya Ambikapathi3 Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Pascal Bessong5 HIV/AIDS & Global Health Research Programme, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, South Africa.
University of Venda · ZAUniversity of Virginia · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

The Water and Health in Limpopo Innovations Fellowship ProgramD43TW009359 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI GUERRANT, RICHARD L · 2012 to 2016
$1.7M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW009359
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is strong evidence that exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) in the first 6 months of life reduces the risk of diseases in infancy and in later life.

objectiveTo understand the maternal reasoning that influences optimum infant feeding practices of caregivers in semirural communities of Limpopo province.

methodsNested qualitative study among mothers in an ongoing birth cohort study was conducted; structured and semi-structured interviews were used to collect data. Data from 234 infants after 6 months of follow-up was included for quantitative analysis. Four focus discussion groups comprising 7 to 10 caregivers were used to obtain perception of mothers on breastfeeding. A semi-structured interview guide was used to stimulate discussions. Thematic content analyses were conducted to identify the main themes that influence breastfeeding practices of caregivers.

resultsOver 90% of the caregivers initiated breastfeeding after delivery. However, less than 1% of mothers practiced EBF by 3 months, and none of the children were exclusively breastfed for up to 6 months. All caregivers introduced non-breast milk liquids and solids by the second month of child's life. Common reasons for introducing non-breast milk foods included insufficiency of breast milk production, going back to work or school, and influence by elderly women (mothers/mothers-in-law) and church members.

conclusionExclusive breastfeeding was not practiced in this community due to cultural and religious beliefs and misinformation. The involvement of elderly women and church members in infant feeding education and promotion programs and the dissemination of breastfeeding information through mobile phones to younger mothers are recommended.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultCohort StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInfant, NewbornInterviews as TopicMalnutritionPregnancySouth AfricaYoung Adultcomplementary feedingexclusive breastfeedinginfant feeding practicesMAL-ED birth cohortnutritionSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID28958169
PMCPMC5811260
OpenAlexW2592638858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.