Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33743718›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2021

Adapting breastfeeding support in areas of socio-economic deprivation: a case study approach.

Louise Hunt, Gill Thomson, Karen Whittaker, Fiona Dykes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Exploring human milk donation: A cross-sectional study.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Interventions and policy approaches to promote equity in breastfeeding.International journal for equity in health · 2022
    Article
  12. 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

4 authors.

Louise HuntMaternal and Infant Nutrition and Nurture Unit (MAINN). School of Community Health and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), Preston, PR12HE, UK. huntlouise8@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3895-1202
Gill ThomsonMaternal and Infant Nutrition and Nurture Unit (MAINN). School of Community Health and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), Preston, PR12HE, UK.
Karen WhittakerSchool of Nursing, UCLan, Preston, PR12HE, UK.
Fiona DykesMaternal and Infant Nutrition and Nurture Unit (MAINN). School of Community Health and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), Preston, PR12HE, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Breast FeedingPoverty AreasPsychosocial DeprivationSocial SupportAdolescentChildFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInfantInterviews as TopicPostnatal CarePovertyPregnancyQualitative ResearchBreastfeedingCase studyPeer supportQualitativeService developmentSocio-economic deprivation

Identifiers

PMID33743718
PMCPMC7980580

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.