ArticlePublic health nutrition2021
The idealisation of bottle feeding: content analysis of feeding bottles and teats packages in Uruguay.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of implementing the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes as national laws: a systematic review.International breastfeeding journal · 2024Pooled it
- Exploring the social representations of breastfeeding among mothers and grandmothers in Uruguay using word association.International breastfeeding journal · 2025Article
- A Descriptive Investigation of Infant Feeding Bottles Marketed in the UK Designed to Replicate Breastfeeding and the Evidence That Underpins Them.Maternal & child nutrition · 2025Article
- National survey of infant feeding bottles in Germany: Their characteristics and marketing claims.Maternal & child nutrition · 2024Article
- Global evidence of persistent violations of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes: A systematic scoping review.Maternal & child nutrition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe information displayed on the packages of feeding bottles and teats commercialised in Montevideo (Uruguay) was analysed using content analysis with the goal of identifying key marketing practices that may discourage breast-feeding.
designThe study was conducted as part of the periodic assessment performed by the Uruguayan government to monitor the marketing of breast milk substitutes. All the feeding bottles and teats sold in forty-four retail outlets selling breast milk substitutes were purchased. The information available on the packages was analysed using content analysis and descriptive statistics.
settingMontevideo, Uruguay.
resultsA total of 197 feeding bottles and 71 teats were found. The majority of the packages included information to enable caregivers to adequately use the products, including recommended age, instructions on how to use the products and instructions on the use of hygienic practices. However, the packages frequently included information that implied that bottle feeding was equivalent to breast-feeding, particularly from a physiological perspective, or that idealised product use. Idealisations included ability to reduce colic, improvements in the feeding experience and improvements in children's health, well-being and development. Statements on the superiority of breast-feeding were infrequent.
conclusionsThe results from the present work showed the high prevalence of marketing practices on the packages of feeding bottles and teats that may discourage breast-feeding. Stricter and more detailed regulations seem necessary to enable caregivers to make informed feeding decisions for infants.
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.