ArticlePloS one2021
The experiences of trained breastfeeding support providers that influence how breastfeeding support is practised: A protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany women stop breastfeeding before they intend to as they cannot overcome breastfeeding difficulties. Breastfeeding support, as an evidence-based intervention by trained lay or professional breastfeeding support providers, can prevent early unintended cessation. Yet some women report dissatisfaction with support and reluctantly stop breastfeeding despite receiving this intervention. Understanding the experiences which shape how support is provided can inform effective implementation of breastfeeding support interventions. This review aims to synthesise experiences of trained breastfeeding support providers in high income settings and how these may influence their breastfeeding support practices.
methodsA qualitative systematic review of trained breastfeeding supporters' experiences of supporting women to breastfeed, as part of a generic healthcare role or focused breastfeeding support role, will be conducted. A systematic search will be performed of the databases: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL +), MEDLINE ALL, Maternity and Infant Care, EMBASE, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus. Title and abstract screening using eligibility criteria will be conducted using Covidence software. Eligible papers will be agreed by the review team following full text screening and reported using PRISMA guidelines. CASP and COREQ tools will assess study methodological quality and quality of reporting. Data will be extracted using a bespoke form and coded, using Excel software for data management. Analysis will involve the three stages of thematic synthesis: initial free coding, development of descriptive and subsequent analytical themes. Confidence in findings will be assessed using the CERQual framework. DISCUSSION: This review is the first to date to synthesise qualitative evidence on experiences which influence how trained lay and professional providers support women with breastfeeding. Findings will enable deeper understanding of the underpinning mechanisms of breastfeeding support provision and inform the development of tailored interventions to improve breastfeeding rates. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020207380.
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.