ArticleBMC medical education2018
A mixed-method evaluation of the views of medical teachers on the applicability of the 'infant and young child feeding chapter' in Saudi medical colleges.
Article in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and Implementation of an Integrated Framework for Undergraduate Pharmacy Training in Maternal and Child Health at a South African University.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLack of sufficient preparation of physicians for the provision of breastfeeding support and counselling has been well-documented. The development of training in breastfeeding medicine for medical students is currently ongoing worldwide. This study was conducted to gain insights into a potential framework for a breastfeeding education curriculum.
methodsA mixed-method design was used to evaluate the opinions of medical teachers regarding current lactation education and the applicability of the World Health Organization 'Infant and young child feeding: model chapter for textbooks for medical students and allied health professionals' in medical colleges in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Twelve teachers from three medical schools were invited to participate in three rounds of research. The first round was carried out through an interview using open-ended questions under three headings: 1) The general opinion on breastfeeding medicine education in medical colleges; 2) The opinion on the contents of the chapter under investigation; and 3) The opinion on cultural points regarding Saudi Arabia and breastfeeding education in medical colleges. This was followed by a thematic analysis. Self-administered, closed-ended questionnaires were created for the second round based the results of the first round. The third round addressed areas of disagreement in opinions. To assess the degree of agreement objectively, rounds 2 and 3 were analyzed according to the 5-point Likert scale, with responses merged to a 3-point Likert scale where appropriate. A consensus was reached when greater than 70% agreement achieved.
resultsAll participants agreed that breastfeeding education is suboptimal. Although they considered the world health organization resource on infant and young child chapter a suitable reference for the curriculum, they agreed that modifications to suit the Saudi Arabian context are necessary. The medical teachers suggested a unique curriculum for medical students, which is similar for both genders. However, disagreement existed regarding the provision of extra clinical training to female students.
conclusionsBreastfeeding medicine education in medical colleges should be developed using resources that are rich in content, are physician-specific and take into consideration the culture.
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.