Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33936334›Full record

ArticlePaediatrics & child health2021

Parent perceptions of routine growth monitoring: A scoping review.

Yasmeen Mansoor, Ilona Hale

Open access · greenAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The care of infants with rapid weight gain: Should we be doing more?Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2022
    Article
  4. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yasmeen MansoorDepartment of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Ilona HaleDepartment of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Kimberley, British Columbia.
Dalhousie University · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite being a well-accepted part of paediatric care, little is known about the benefits or potential harms of routine growth monitoring (RGM) from a parent's perspective.

objectiveTo explore parental experiences with RGM.

methodsLiterature searches were performed on Google Scholar, psycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed. Included studies were published after 2000 and described parental comprehension, preferences, attitudes toward, and/or behaviour change related to RGM.

resultsOf 24 reviewed studies, four themes were identified: reliance on growth monitoring, understanding, influence on feeding and behaviour, and response to obesity-related classification. RGM was familiar but not strongly preferred to identify a child's weight status. Parental understanding of RGM was poor, particularly among parents with low socioeconomic status. A common belief was that heavier babies were healthier, while smaller babies should prompt concern. Parents may be anxious and change behaviour in response to RGM, such as by halting breastfeeding, supplementing, or restricting their child's diet. Parents frequently discounted RGM information when their child was identified as overweight, and expressed concerns about self-esteem and eating disorders.

conclusionThis scoping review identifies that although RGM is familiar and sometimes reassuring to parents, increased consideration should be given to potential harms from parental perspectives when conducting growth monitoring.

Indexed as

ChildrenGrowth chartsGrowth disorders/diagnosisNutritionPaediatric obesityParents

Identifiers

PMID33936334
PMCPMC8077212
OpenAlexW3014613133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.