Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29349895›Full record

SynthesisMaternal & child nutrition2018

Men's views and experiences of infant feeding: A qualitative systematic review.

Sarah Earle, Robin Hadley

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Maternal & child nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Integrative Review of Mental Health and Feeding Styles in Parents of Bottle-Fed Infants.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

2 authors.

Sarah EarleSchool of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care, Horlock Building, The Open University, Walton Hall, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2810-5659
Robin HadleyIndependent Researcher, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4254-7648

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the advantages of breastfeeding are well documented, rates for breastfeeding often fall short of international and national targets. Increasing attention has been paid to the role of men in infant feeding, but a lot of the research about men has been elicited from women, rather than from men themselves. To explore these issues further, a systematic review of the qualitative research on infant feeding was carried out, focusing specifically on men's own views and experiences. Evidence was identified by searching electronic databases (CINAL, Cochrane, PubMed, and Scopus), manually searching citations, and by searching the grey literature. Studies were included in the review if they discussed men's views and experiences of infant feeding and if they reported primary qualitative data. Twenty research papers were included in the review, and each study was summarised and then analysed thematically to produce a synthesis. Five major analytical themes were identified: men's knowledge of infant feeding; men's perceptions of their role in infant feeding; positive views on breastfeeding; negative views on breastfeeding; and men's experiences of health promotion and support. The review concludes by highlighting that although men can play an important role in supporting women, they do not have a significant role in infant feeding decisions.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingDecision MakingHealth PromotionDatabases, FactualFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInfantMaleMenSocial Supportbreastfeedinghealth promotioninfant feedingqualitative methodssystematic reviewwomen's health

Identifiers

PMID29349895
PMCPMC6866241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.