Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32398087›Full record

ArticleInternational breastfeeding journal2020

Helpful and challenging aspects of breastfeeding in public for women living in Australia, Ireland and Sweden: a cross-sectional study.

Yvonne L Hauck, Lesley Kuliukas, Louise Gallagher, Vivienne Brady, Charlotta Dykes, Christine Rubertsson

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International breastfeeding journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Testing the buffering hypothesis: Breastfeeding problems, cessation, and social support in the UK.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Yvonne L HauckDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery Education and Research, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Lesley KuliukasSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Louise GallagherSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, D02 T283, Ireland.
Vivienne BradySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, D02 T283, Ireland.
Charlotta DykesSkåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Christine RubertssonInstitute of Health Sciences, Medical Faculty, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Christine.Rubertsson@med.lu.se.ORCID 0000-0001-7416-6335
Curtin University · AUTrinity College Dublin · IELund University · SESkåne University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreastfeeding in public continues to be contentious with qualitative evidence confirming that women face many challenges. It is therefore important to gain understanding of not only the challenges but also what women perceive is helpful to breastfeed in public.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with women living in Australia, Ireland or Sweden currently breastfeeding or having breastfed within the previous 2 years. Our objective was to explore and compare what women do when faced with having to breastfeed in the presence of someone they are uncomfortable with and what women think is helpful and challenging when considering whether to breastfeed in public. Data were collected in 2018 from an online survey over a 4 week period in each country. Content analysis revealed data similarity and theme names and definitions were negotiated until consensus was reached. How often each theme was cited was counted to report frequencies. Helpful and challenging aspects were also ranked by women to allow international comparison.

resultsTen themes emerged around women facing someone they were uncomfortable to breastfeed in the presence of with the most frequently cited being: 'made the effort to be discreet'; 'moved to a private location'; 'turned away' and 'just got on with breastfeeding'. Nine themes captured challenges to breastfeed in public with the following ranked in the top five across countries: 'unwanted attention'; 'no comfortable place to sit'; 'environment not suitable'; 'awkward audience' and 'not wearing appropriate clothing'. Nine themes revealed what was helpful to breastfeed in public with the top five: 'supportive network'; 'quiet private suitable environment'; 'comfortable seating'; 'understanding and acceptance of others' and 'seeing other mothers' breastfeed'.

conclusionsWhen breastfeeding in public women are challenged by shared concerns around unwanted attention, coping with an awkward audience and unsuitable environments. Women want to feel comfortable when breastfeeding in a public space. How women respond to situations where they are uncomfortable is counterproductive to what they share would be helpful, namely seeing other mothers breastfeed. Themes reveal issues beyond the control of the individual and highlight how the support required by breastfeeding women is a public health responsibility.

Indexed as

AttitudePublic FacilitiesAdolescentAdultAustraliaBreast FeedingCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornIrelandMiddle AgedMothersSocial BehaviorSwedenBreastfeeding in publicDecision-makingExperiencesMothers

Identifiers

PMID32398087
PMCPMC7218587
OpenAlexW3028392736

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.