ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Compensatory Health Beliefs on Breastfeeding Varying by Breastfeeding Status; A Scale Development.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Exposure to "Exemption" Video Advertisements for Functional Foods: A Randomized Control Study in Japan.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Compensatory Belief in Health Behavior Management: A Concept Analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo examine whether compensatory health beliefs (CHB) on breastfeeding vary as a function of breastfeeding status among mothers of infants.
methodsParticipants included 773 women aged 18 and older (M = 32.8) who gave birth in the last two years; 445 were breastfeeding exclusively, 165 were breastfeeding partially, and 163 were not breastfeeding. They responded to a survey posted on social media sites' closed groups that focused on post-natal issues. Design was cross-sectional, with CHB as the outcome variable (14 items) and demographics and feeding status as the explanatory variables.
resultsThe internal reliability of the CHB scale was α = 0.87. There was a statistically significant difference in the level of CHB between non-breastfeeding women, breastfeeding women, and women who combined breastfeeding with infant formula, so that non- breastfeeding women had the highest level of CHB. There was no significant difference in CHB by either birth experience or demographic characteristics.
conclusionThis study extended CHB to breastfeeding, documenting the minimization of the disadvantages of not breastfeeding by non-breastfeeding women, attempting to neutralize or reduce the cognitive dissonance between non-nursing and optimal infant care. Possible uses of the scale for counselling were suggested, both in the prenatal and post-natal period, proactively bringing forward and addressing ambivalence towards breastfeeding.
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.