Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34454543›Full record

ArticleInternational breastfeeding journal2021

One-week recall period gives a more accurate estimate of exclusive breastfeeding practice than 24-h recall among infants younger than six months of age.

Sewitemariam Desalegn Andarge, Esete Habtemariam Fenta, Seifu Hagos Gebreyesus, Robel Yirgu Belachew

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Breastfeeding Measurement - Considerations When Measuring Exclusive Breastfeeding.Journal of human lactation : official journal of International Lactation Consultant Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Sewitemariam Desalegn AndargeDepartment of Reproductive Health and Health Service Management, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. sewitedesa@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8726-5041
Esete Habtemariam FentaDepartment of Reproductive Health and Health Service Management, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Seifu Hagos GebreyesusDepartment of Reproductive Health and Health Service Management, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Robel Yirgu BelachewDepartment of Reproductive Health and Health Service Management, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization recommends a 24-h recall period to estimate breastfeeding practice of mothers of infants aged younger than six-months. Though 24-h recall was preferred for its low recall bias and for practical reasons, it can overestimate exclusive breastfeeding practice (EBF). Validating this indicator will help account for the deviation from the true estimate. This prospective cohort study measured accuracy of the 24-h recall method and validates a week recall as an alternative approach for use in a small sample population.

methodThe study was conducted from March to April 2018 involving 408 mother-infant pairs living in Butajira Health and Demographic Surveillance Site (HDSS), Southern Ethiopia. Participants were prospectively followed for 14 consecutive days; where their breastfeeding practice in the past 24 h was measured daily. Exclusive breastfeeding prevalence estimate obtained using the 24-h recall method and recall periods spanning a varying number of days (short period recalls) was compared against the cumulative of the responses from a prospectively measured repeated 24-h recalls over the course of 14 days. McNemar statistics was used to assess statistical significance of the difference in the EBF prevalence estimates of the single 24-h recall and the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values were calculated to determine the level of accuracy. Receiver Operating Characteristics curve was used to measure the difference in performance between the two methods.

resultThe highest prevalence (71.4%) of exclusive breastfeeding practice was estimated using the single 24-h recall method whereas the lowest breastfeeding practice (47.1%) was obtained from a cumulative of 14 repeated 24-h recalls. A week recall (a recall over 7 days' period), resulted in the smallest discrepancy in estimate (7.1%) as compared to cumulative estimate of 14 repeated 24-h recalls. Comparing against our reference standard, a week recall had 96.7% sensitivity and 83.5% specificity in estimating exclusive breastfeeding practice.

conclusionsUsing single 24-h recall method overestimated exclusive breastfeeding prevalence. However, a week recall gave an estimate close to the estimate from the standard method. A week recall has a potential to balance the tradeoff between the accuracy of EBF estimates and the resource implication of using multiple prospective measurements that have a proven superior accuracy.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingMothersFemaleHumansInfantMental RecallProspective StudiesWorld Health Organization24-h recallAccuracyExclusive breastfeedingOverestimationWeek recall

Identifiers

PMID34454543
PMCPMC8403454

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.