Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32198797›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2020

Women's and peer supporters' experiences of an assets-based peer support intervention for increasing breastfeeding initiation and continuation: A qualitative study.

Jenny Ingram, Gill Thomson, Debbie Johnson, Joanne L Clarke, Heather Trickey, Pat Hoddinott, Stephan U Dombrowski, Kate Jolly, ABA Study Team

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Women's and peer supporters' experiences of an assets-based peer support intervention for increasing breastfeeding initiation and continuation: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    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

9 authors.

Jenny IngramCentre for Academic Child Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2366-008X
Gill ThomsonMaternal and Infant Nutrition and Nurture Unit (MAINN), University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Debbie JohnsonCentre for Academic Child Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Joanne L ClarkeInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Heather TrickeyDECIPHER, Department of Social Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Pat HoddinottNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Stephan U DombrowskiFaculty of Kinesiology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada.
Kate JollyInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
ABA Study Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and contextBreastfeeding peer support is valued by women, but UK trials have not demonstrated efficacy. The ABA feasibility trial offered proactive peer support underpinned by behaviour change theory and an assets-based approach to women having their first baby, regardless of feeding intention. This paper explores women's and infant feeding helpers' (IFHs) views of the different components of the ABA intervention. SETTING AND

participantsTrained IFHs offered 50 women an antenatal meeting to discuss infant feeding and identify community assets in two English sites-one with a paid peer support service and the other volunteer-led. Postnatally, daily contact was offered for the first 2 weeks, followed by less frequent contact until 5 months.

methodsInterviews with 21 women and focus groups/interviews with 13 IFHs were analysed using thematic and framework methods.

resultsFive themes are reported highlighting that women talked positively about the antenatal meeting, mapping their network of support, receiving proactive contact from their IFH, keeping in touch using text messaging and access to local groups. The face-to-face antenatal visit facilitated regular text-based communication both in pregnancy and in the early weeks after birth. Volunteer IFHs were supportive of and enthusiastic about the intervention, whereas some of the paid IFHs disliked some intervention components and struggled with the distances to travel to participants.

conclusionsThis proactive community assets-based approach with a woman-centred focus was acceptable to women and IFHs and is a promising intervention warranting further research as to its effect on infant feeding outcomes.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingSocial SupportFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInfantPeer GroupPregnancyQualitative Researchassets-based approachbreastfeedinginfant feedingpeer supportqualitative interviews

Identifiers

PMID32198797
PMCPMC7321743

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.