ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2021
Adapting breastfeeding support in areas of socio-economic deprivation: a case study approach.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Peer Support and Community Interventions Targeting Breastfeeding in the UK: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence to Identify Inequities in Participants' Experiences.Maternal & child nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Non-profit breastfeeding organisations' peer support provision in areas of socio-economic deprivation in the UK: A meta-ethnography.Maternal & child nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- Exploring human milk donation: A cross-sectional study.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Early neonatal admissions with feeding difficulties to acute paediatric services at a tertiary paediatric hospital in England: sequential audits pre-COVID-19 and during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Breastfeeding in the Context of Trauma and Previous Psychological Experiences: A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Breastfeeding Promotion in Maternity Wards From a Socioeconomic View.Food science & nutrition · 2025Article
- Harmony in healthcare: recommended infant feeding practices and associated factors among HIV positive mothers in Eastern Ethiopian hospitals.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Article
- Poor access to breastfeeding counseling services and associated factors among lactating mothers who had optimal antenatal care follow-up in Sub-saharan Africa: a multilevel analysis of the recent Demographic and Health Survey.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Breastfeeding initiation and duration through the COVID-19 pandemic, a linked population-level routine data study: the Born in Wales Cohort 2018-2021.BMJ paediatrics open · 2023Article
- Interventions and policy approaches to promote equity in breastfeeding.International journal for equity in health · 2022Article
- Determinants of Formula Feeding among Mothers in Indonesia: The Role of Digital Media and Microeconomic Factors.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are inequalities in breastfeeding initiation and continuation rates, whereby socio-economically disadvantaged mothers are least likely to breastfeed. Breastfeeding peer support (BPS) interventions are recommended as a solution, and in the UK non-profit organisations are commissioned to deliver BPS services in areas of socio-economic deprivation. BPS interventions have a mixed evidence base, offering limited knowledge about the interaction between context and intervention and how this affects women's experiences.
methodsThis interpretive study used a case study methodology to explore how and why two BPS services developed their services in socio-economically deprived contexts. Methods aimed to generate holistic understanding of BPS service development. Data collected across both cases comprised; observation (n = 1), and semi-structured interviews with: mothers who had (n = 10) and had not (n = 9) engaged with the BPS services, peer supporters (PSs) (n = 9), community health professionals (n = 5), infant feeding co-ordinators (n = 2), non-profit organisation managers (n = 3), and public health commissioners (n = 2). Inductive grounded theory analytic techniques of open coding and constant comparisons, followed by cross case comparisons, were used to analyse the data.
resultsThe over-arching theme - 'the transcending influence of society' - offers insights into the underlying context and drivers impacting service development. It reflects how funding and data sharing arrangements determined service operation and the peer's access to women. Four underpinning themes explain how: peer supporters were resourceful in adapting their services ('adapting and modifying the support'); BPS organisations worked to enable women's access to supportive breastfeeding environments, but did not necessarily focus service development on the needs of women living in areas of deprivation ('supporting women's journeys to access'); the BPS-professional connections for supporting access and how BPS could result in more supportive community environments ('embedding within healthcare practice'); and how management practices precluded meaningful use of data to provide context led service development ('ways of using knowledge').
conclusionsFindings suggest that while PSs are commissioned to focus on those most in need, there is limited discussion, collection, or use of knowledge about women's lives to develop needs-led service delivery. The key recommendation is the development of a social ecological tool to facilitate the use and application of contextual knowledge.
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.