ArticleBMJ open2022
Healthcare provider's experiences of supporting breastfeeding: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative evidence.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical experiences of final-year nursing students during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-synthesis.Nurse education today · 2023Pooled 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBreastfeeding provides various health benefits to both mothers and infants. Despite the efforts that have been made, breastfeeding rates remain lower than recommended worldwide. Healthcare providers often fail to provide the support women need due to various reasons such as lack of time and competency, discontinuity of care and so on. Synthesis of the primary qualitative studies exploring healthcare providers' experience with supporting breastfeeding can provide greater insights into their perceived barriers and facilitators and further provide evidence for the implementation of interventions to improve breastfeeding services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Qualitative studies exploring healthcare providers' experiences with breastfeeding services will be searched in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, Chinese Wanfang Data, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Open Grey collection. Studies reported in English or Chinese and conducted between January 1990 to July 2021 will be included. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research will be used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The JBI standardised data extraction tools will be used to extract data. The JBI meta-aggregation method will be used to synthesise the data. The synthesised findings will be graded finally according to the ConQual approach to establish confidence. Two authors will independently screen and select the search output, extract data, assess methodological quality and cluster findings. Any disagreements that arise between the two reviewers will be adjudicated by a third reviewer to reach a consensus. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will use published data, so it will not require ethical approval. The findings of this systematic review will be disseminated via an international peer-reviewed journal publication and several scientific conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021254542.
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.