ArticlePloS one2020
Assessing the impact of professional lactation support frequency, duration and delivery form on exclusive breastfeeding in Lebanese mothers.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of an Online Theory-Based Educational Programme for Primiparous Women on Improving Breastfeeding-Related Outcomes: A Randomised Controlled Trial.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2025Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal frequency, duration, and form of professional lactation support needed to continue exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) for six months have not yet been specifically identified. This study investigates the association between six-month EBF and the frequency, duration, and form (face-to-face vs. telephone contact) of professional lactation support in a cohort of Lebanese mothers, and explores barriers to EBF during the first six months postpartum.
methodsAn observational study was nested in a breastfeeding support randomized controlled trial. Secondary analysis of data from 159 trial participants who received professional lactation support was conducted. (1) Six-month EBF with professional lactation support frequency, duration, and form was investigated using bivariate and multivariate regression analyses. (2) Barriers to breastfeeding were explored using content analysis of narrative data collected about breastfeeding mothers by the lactation experts.
resultsSix-month EBF was achieved by 57/159 (35.8%) participants. Professional lactation support was received by more mothers continuing six months of EBF (100% vs. 83.3%, p = 0.001). In crude analysis, those mothers had a higher number of overall contacts with lactation experts (mean ± SD of 9.5 ± 2.9 vs. 7.0 ± 4.4, p = 0.001), and longer duration of face-to-face contacts (mean ± SD of 261.9 ± 209.1 vs. 201.0 ± 117.4 minutes, p = 0.035). In adjusted analysis, frequencies of overall and of telephone contacts with the lactation experts were positively associated with six-month EBF (OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.27, p = 0.007; OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.26, p = 0.05; respectively). Participants discontinuing EBF early were described as inexperienced, lacking breastfeeding knowledge, concerned about milk insufficiency, and showing negative attitudes towards night feeds.
conclusionNeed-based telephone contact augmenting face-to-face professional lactation support may positively influence six-month EBF. Early identification of mothers at risk for early discontinuation of EBF can help tailor interventions specific to their concerns.
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.