SynthesisInternational breastfeeding journal2021
Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: a review of education and training courses on breastfeeding support for health professionals.
Synthesis in International breastfeeding journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Timing Routines With Patience: A Focused Ethnography on Newborn Breastfeeding in Hospitals.Maternal & child nutrition · 2026Article
- Distance learning on breastfeeding for residents in pediatrics.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Observational
- Experiences of healthcare professionals in a breastfeeding training program.International breastfeeding journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Immersive Videos Improve Student Self-Efficacy in Clinical Lactation.The Journal of perinatal education · 2023Article
- Effects of prenatal professional breastfeeding education for the family.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- How much does it cost to implement the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative training step in the United States and Mexico?PloS one · 2022Review
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
backgroundCurrently, lactation training courses aimed at health professionals are important for informing and supporting mothers who are breastfeeding. In this review, we seek to analyze similarities and/or variations in course content, modes of delivery, costs, teaching style and learning strategies among courses. To our knowledge, a review of lactation training courses available worldwide is lacking. Thus, the aim of this review is to describe course models aimed at training health professionals in lactation support for mothers.
methodsThrough searching grey literature, training courses were obtained from several directories, including the Alaska Breastfeeding Coalition, International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners (IBLCE), International Lactation Consultant Association (ILCA), Lactation Education Accreditation Association and Approval Review Committee (LEAARC), World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA), World Health Organization (WHO), and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).
resultsDescriptions of ten training programs were included in the final review. Our group found variations in costs, modes of delivery and duration among courses.
conclusionsCertified training for health professionals in lactation is a promising approach for increasing and protecting breastfeeding. Breastfeeding mothers might also benefit from specifically trained health professionals, yet, well-conducted research on such training courses is still required. The variability in the mode of teaching, tuition costs and course content in breastfeeding education programs around the globe must be kept in mind when considering providing training on the optimal competency for health professionals.
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.