ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2019
Combined pro-breastfeeding practices are advantageous in facilities providing maternity and newborn services.
Article in Maternal & child nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Influencing Uptake of Breastfeeding: The Role of Early Promotion in the Maternity Hospital.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Breastfeeding in Hospitals: Factors Influencing Maternal Choice in Italy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Combined pro-breastfeeding practices are advantageous in facilities providing maternity and newborn services.Maternal & child nutrition · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the association between a set of pro-breastfeeding practices in facilities providing maternity and newborn services and the prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding at 30 days postpartum, considering the contribution of each practice. A cross-sectional study nested within a cohort study was conducted with 287 women who delivered healthy term infants in two hospitals in southern Brazil. They were interviewed at home at 30 days postpartum. The following practices were evaluated: skin-to-skin contact soon after birth, breastfeeding in the first hour, uninterrupted rooming-in, professional support with breastfeeding, breastfeeding guidance, encouragement to breastfeed on demand, no supplementation with infant formula, and no pacifier use. A score of pro-breastfeeding practices was calculated using a logistic model, which allowed each practice to have its discriminatory capacity and difficulty estimated individually. Poisson regression was used to estimate the association between exclusive breastfeeding at 30 days and the pro-breastfeeding practice score. The prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding at 30 days was 61.7%. The practices with greatest discriminatory capacity, that is, those that contributed most to the score estimates, were professional support with breastfeeding, breastfeeding guidance, and encouragement to breastfeed on demand. The most difficult ones were breastfeeding in the first hour, encouragement to breastfeed on demand, and non-utilization of infant formula. For each unit (standard deviation) of increase in the score, there was an increase of 20% in the prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding at 30 days. We conclude that the set of pro-breastfeeding practices assessed here increased the effect of these practices on exclusive breastfeeding rates at 30 days.
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.