Trial reportInternational health2018
Comparative effects of three methods of promoting breastfeeding among human immunodeficiency virus-infected women in Uganda: a parallel randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in International health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reach and impact of a nationwide media campaign in Ethiopia for promoting safe breastfeeding practices in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC global and public health · 2024Article
- Correlates of early breastfeeding cessation and breastmilk expression in Uganda: a case-control study.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Article
- Engaging family members in maternal, infant and young child nutrition activities in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic scoping review.Maternal & child nutrition · 2021Article
- Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Behavioral Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries to Increase Family Support for Maternal, Infant, and Young Child Nutrition during the First 1000 Days.Current developments in nutrition · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative effects of three breastfeeding promotion interventions on the duration of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) and any breastfeeding (BF) among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected women in Uganda. Methods: Between February 2012 and February 2013, 218 HIV-infected pregnant mothers were randomly assigned to (A) standard care (n=73), (B) enhanced family/peer support (n=72) or (C) enhanced nutrition education (n=73). Results: The prevalence (%) of EBF/BF did not differ between intervention arms at the sixth (A, 85/92; B, 84/91; C, 87/89) and ninth (A, 17/91; B, 18/89; C, 16/87) postpartum month assessments (p>0.05). However, the risk of early BF cessation differed between intervention arms depending on the mother's level of formal education (p=0.04). Among women with no formal education, the risk of early BF cessation was 88% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.12 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.05-0.30]) and 93% (aHR 0.07 [95% CI 0.03-0.18]) lower in arms B and C, respectively, than in arm A (p<0.01). HIV status disclosure to a partner was associated with a higher risk of early EBF (p=0.03) and BF (p=0.04) cessation. Conclusions: In resource-limited settings, enhanced (vs standard care) EBF promotion interventions may not differentially influence EBF but reduce the risk of early BF cessation among women with no formal education. Targeted enhanced interventions among women with no formal education and a mother's partner may be critical to reducing the risk of early EBF/BF cessation.
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.