Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30064415›Full record

SynthesisBMC complementary and alternative medicine2018

Complementary medicine products used in pregnancy and lactation and an examination of the information sources accessed pertaining to maternal health literacy: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

Larisa Ariadne Justine Barnes, Lesley Barclay, Kirsten McCaffery, Parisa Aslani

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Women's health literacy and the complex decision-making process to use complementary medicine products in pregnancy and lactation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Larisa Ariadne Justine BarnesFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia. larisa.barnes@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9847-775X
Lesley BarclayUniversity Centre for Rural Health, The University of Sydney, PO Box 3074, Lismore, NSW, 2480, Australia.
Kirsten McCafferySydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Rm 128B, Edward Ford Building A27, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Parisa AslaniFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Rm N502, Pharmacy & Bank Building (A15), Science Rd, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prevalence of complementary medicine use in pregnancy and lactation has been increasingly noted internationally. This systematic review aimed to determine the complementary medicine products (CMPs) used in pregnancy and/or lactation for the benefit of the mother, the pregnancy, child and/or the breastfeeding process. Additionally, it aimed to explore the resources women used, and to examine the role of maternal health literacy in this process.

methodsSeven databases were comprehensively searched to identify studies published in peer-reviewed journals (1995-2017). Relevant data were extracted and thematic analysis undertaken to identify key themes related to the review objectives.

resultsA total of 4574 articles were identified; 28 qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative studies were removed for a separate, concurrent review. Herbal medicines were the main CMPs identified (n = 21 papers) in the qualitative studies, with a smaller number examining vitamin and mineral supplements together with herbal medicines (n = 3), and micronutrient supplements (n = 3). Shared cultural knowledge and traditions, followed by women elders and health care professionals were the information sources most accessed by women when choosing to use CMPs. Women used CMPs for perceived physical, mental-emotional, spiritual and cultural benefits for their pregnancies, their own health, the health of their unborn or breastfeeding babies, and/or the breastfeeding process. Two over-arching motives were identified: 1) to protect themselves or their babies from adverse events; 2) to facilitate the normal physiological processes of pregnancy, birth and lactation. Decisions to use CMPs were made within the context of their own cultures, reflected in the locus of control regarding decision-making in pregnancy and lactation, and in the health literacy environment. Medical pluralism was very common and women navigated through and between different health care services and systems throughout their pregnancies and breastfeeding journeys.

conclusionsPregnant and breastfeeding women use herbal medicines and micronutrient supplements for a variety of perceived benefits to their babies' and their own holistic health. Women access a range of CMP-related information sources with shared cultural knowledge and women elders the most frequently accessed sources, followed by HCPs. Culture influences maternal health literacy and thus women's health care choices including CMP use.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesHealth LiteracyLactationWomen's HealthAdultBreast FeedingDecision MakingFemaleHumansPregnancyQualitative ResearchBreastfeedingComplementary medicine productsCultureHealth care choicesHealth literacyLactationMedical pluralismPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID30064415
PMCPMC6069845

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.