Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29246194›Full record

ReviewJournal of health, population, and nutrition2017

Engaging men to promote and support exclusive breastfeeding: a descriptive review of 28 projects in 20 low- and middle-income countries from 2003 to 2013.

Jennifer M Yourkavitch, Jeniece L Alvey, Debra M Prosnitz, James C Thomas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Jennifer M YourkavitchDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive, 2101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB #7435, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7435, USA. yourkavi@live.unc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7701-1918
Jeniece L AlveyPublic Health Institute/Global Health Fellows Program II, Washington, DC, USA.
Debra M ProsnitzDivision of International Health and Development ICF, Rockville, MD, USA.
James C ThomasDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive, 2101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB #7435, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7435, USA.

Funding

Research Services CoreP2CHD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KAREN B GUZZO · 2015 to 2026
$9.6M
Training Program in Reproductive, Perinatal, and Pediatric EpidemiologyT32HD052468 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Julie L Daniels · 2008 to 2026
$3.8M
National Institutes of Health T32-HD52468NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD050924NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD052468
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLay support has been associated with improved breastfeeding practices, but studies of programs that engage men in breastfeeding support have shown mixed results and most are from high-income countries. The purpose of our research is to review strategies to engage men in exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) promotion or support in 28 project areas across 20 low- and middle-income countries. This information may be used to inform program implementers and policymakers seeking to increase EBF.

methodsWe tested the difference between baseline and final EBF proportions using Pearson's chi-square (a = 0.05) and identified project areas with a significant increase. We categorized male engagement strategies as low- and high-intensity, using information from project reports. We looked for patterns by intensity and geography and described strategies used to engage men in different places.

resultsTwenty-eight projects were reviewed; 21 (75%) were in areas where a statistically significant increase in EBF was observed between the beginning and end of the project. A variety of high- and low-intensity male engagement strategies was used in areas with an increase in EBF prevalence and in all geographic regions. High-intensity strategies engaged men directly during home or health visits by forming men's groups and by working with male community leaders or members to promote EBF. Low-intensity strategies included large community meetings that included men, and radio messages, and other behavior change materials directed towards men.

conclusionMale engagement strategies took many forms in these project areas. We did not find consistent associations between the intensities or types of male engagement strategies and increases in EBF proportions. There is a gap in understanding how gender norms might impact male involvement in women's health behaviors. This review does not support the broad application of male engagement to improve EBF practices, and we recommend considering local gender norms when designing programs to support women to EBF.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorAttitude to HealthBreast FeedingCommunity Health ServicesHealth PromotionHumansMaleMenPsychosocial Support SystemsSex FactorsWomen's HealthExclusive breastfeedingGenderMale involvement

Identifiers

PMID29246194
PMCPMC5732415

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.