Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31049262›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of MCH and AIDS2019

Exclusive Breastfeeding Rates and Factors Associated with Exclusive Breastfeeding Practices in Northern Tanzania: Measurement using Two Different Methodologies-24 Hours Recall and Recall Since Birth.

Tamara H Hussein, Melina Mgongo, Jacqueline G Uriyo, Damian J Damian, Babill Stray-Pedersen, Sia E Msuya, Margareta Wandel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of MCH and AIDS, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Tamara H HusseinBetter Health for African Mother and Child, Box 8418 Moshi, Tanzania.
Melina MgongoBetter Health for African Mother and Child, Box 8418 Moshi, Tanzania.
Jacqueline G UriyoBetter Health for African Mother and Child, Box 8418 Moshi, Tanzania.
Damian J DamianInstitute of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College (KCMU Co), Box 2240, Moshi, Tanzania.
Babill Stray-PedersenBetter Health for African Mother and Child, Box 8418 Moshi, Tanzania.
Sia E MsuyaBetter Health for African Mother and Child, Box 8418 Moshi, Tanzania.
Margareta WandelDepartment of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway.
Amref Health Africa · TZUniversity of Oslo · NOKilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre · TZOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExclusive breastfeeding (EBF) has many benefits to the child from mental to physical growth and development; however, methods of measuring EBF have raised a number of policy and programmatic questions. This study assesses EBF rates and factors associated with EBF practices in Northern Tanzania using two different methodologies, namely, the 24-hours recall and recall-since-birth.

methodsA cohort study was conducted from October 2013 to December 2015 among mother-infants' pairs. Mothers with child delivery information (N=430) were followed and included in the analyses. We enrolled pregnant women who were in their third trimesters and interviewed them with the help of questionnaires at enrollment, delivery, 7 days and thereafter monthly up to nine months after delivery. At each visit after delivery, information on breastfeeding using the two methods (24 hours recall and recall-since-birth) was collected.

resultsThe prevalence of EBF dropped from one month to six months when using both the 24 hours recall and the recall since birth methods, but at different rates. At six months, 24.2% of the mothers practiced EBF when measured with the recall since birth method, compared to 38.8% when measured with the 24 hour recall. Predictors of EBF were also different. When using the recall since birth method, women who had received counseling on infant feeding had increased odds of practicing EBF compared to those who did not receive counseling, [AOR=2.3; 95% CI (1.2, 3.7)]. When using 24 hours recall, women who were unemployed had increased odds of practicing EBF compared to those who were employed [AOR=1.5;95% CI(1.1,2.5)], and women aged 35 - 49 years had decreased odds of practicing EBF compared to younger women[AOR=0.28; 95 % CI(0.1,0.7)]. CONCLUSIONS AND GLOBAL HEALTH IMPLICATIONS: The two methods for EBF give substantially different results, both in the prevalence of EBF and factors associated with EBF. The higher EBF obtained with 24 hours recall represents an overestimation and thereby an overly positive picture of the situation.

Indexed as

24 HoursBreastfeedingExclusive BreastfeedingFactorsRatesRecall Since BirthTanzania

Identifiers

PMID31049262
PMCPMC6487506
OpenAlexW2936214347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.