Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30249216›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2018

Effectiveness of targeting fathers for breastfeeding promotion: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pasyodun Koralage Buddhika Mahesh, Moraendage Wasantha Gunathunga, Suriyakumara Mahendra Arnold, Chintha Jayasinghe, Sisira Pathirana, Mohamed Fahmy Makarim, Pradeep Malaka Manawadu, Sameera Jayan Senanayake

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Sharing the motherload: A review and development of the CO-Parent conceptual model for early childhood obesity prevention.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pasyodun Koralage Buddhika MaheshOffice of Regional Director of Health Services, Colombo, Sri Lanka. buddhikamaheshpk@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9037-5142
Moraendage Wasantha GunathungaDepartment of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Suriyakumara Mahendra ArnoldOffice of Regional Director of Health Services, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Chintha JayasingheEpidemiology Unit, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Sisira PathiranaFaculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Mohamed Fahmy MakarimMinistry of Health, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Pradeep Malaka ManawaduMinistry of Health, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Sameera Jayan SenanayakePost Graduate Institute of Medicine, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
University of Colombo · LKMinistry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine · LKBuddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka · LK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFurther research gaps exist in relation to the promotion of breastfeeding. Robust scientific evidence obtained by a meta-analysis would provide objectively summarized data while enabling the assessment of consistency of findings. This review includes the first documented meta-analysis done on the effectiveness of targeting fathers for promoting breastfeeding (BF). Assessments have been done for a primary outcome and for six more secondary outcomes.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL databases and unpublished researches were searched. Selections of randomized-controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were done in three rounds. Heterogeneity and potential publication bias were assessed. Eight studies were included in meta-analysis and others in narrative synthesis of the outcomes. Pooling was done with the Mental- Haenszel method using risk ratio (RR). Summary-of-Findings table was composed by Review-Manager (version 5.3) and GRADEproGDT applications. Subsequent sensitivity analysis was done.

resultsSelected eight interventional studies included 1852 families. Exclusive BF at six months was significantly higher (RR = 2.04, CI = 1.58-2.65) in the intervention groups. The RR at 4 months was 1.52 (CI = 1.14 to 2.03). Risk of full-formula-feeding (RR = 0.69, CI = 0.52-0.93) and the occurrence of lactation-related problems were lower in the intervention groups (RR = 0.24, CI = 0.10-0.57). More likelihood of rendering support in BF-related issues was seen in intervention groups (RR = 1.43, CI = 1.22-1.68). Increase of maternal knowledge and favorable attitudes on BF were higher in the intervention groups (P ≤; 0.001). The quality of evidence according to GRADE was "low" (for one outcome), "moderate" (for four outcomes), and "high" (for two outcomes).

conclusionsTargeting fathers in promotion of BF has provided favorable results for all seven outcomes with satisfactory quality of evidence. This review was registered in the PROSPERO-registry (ID: 2017-CRD42017076163) prior to its commencement.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsBreast FeedingFathersFemaleHealth PromotionHumansInfantMaleProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBreastfeedingBreastfeeding promotionExclusive breastfeedingFathers’ influence on breastfeedingInfant nutritionPartner support in breastfeeding

Identifiers

PMID30249216
PMCPMC6154400
OpenAlexW2892438954

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.