Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34964542›Full record

SynthesisMaternal & child nutrition2022

Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anna Gavine, Joyce Marshall, Phyll Buchanan, Joan Cameron, Agnes Leger, Sam Ross, Amal Murad, Alison McFadden

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Maternal & child nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

8 authors.

Anna GavineSchool of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3750-2445
Joyce MarshallDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2784-1817
Phyll BuchananBreastfeeding Network, UK.
Joan CameronSchool of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK.
Agnes LegerBreastfeeding Network, UK.
Sam RossSchool of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, University of Glasgow and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Amal MuradMaternity and Childhood Nursing Department, College of Nursing, Taibah University, Medina, Saudi Arabia.
Alison McFaddenSchool of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5164-2025

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic has led to a substantial increase in remotely provided maternity care services, including breastfeeding support. It is, therefore, important to understand whether breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. To determine if breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Twenty-nine studies were included in the review and 26 contributed data to the meta-analysis. Remotely provided breastfeeding support significantly reduced the risk of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months by 25% (risk ratio [RR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63, 0.90). There was no significant difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.74, 1.64), 3 months (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.11), or 6 months (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.81, 1.03) or the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.07) or 6 months (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.0). There was substantial heterogeneity of interventions in terms of mode of delivery, intensity, and providers. This demonstrates that remote interventions can be effective for improving exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months but the certainty of the evidence is low. Improvements in exclusive breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks and 6 months were only found when studies at high risk of bias were excluded. They are also less likely to be effective for improving any breastfeeding. Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education could be provided when it is not possible to provide face-to-face care.

Indexed as

COVID-19Maternal Health ServicesBreast FeedingFemaleHumansPandemicsPostnatal CarePregnancybreast feedingcounsellinglactationmeta-analysisonline social supportsystematic reviewtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34964542
PMCPMC8932718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.