Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35914544›Full record

SynthesisMaternal & child nutrition2022

Views and experience of breastfeeding in public: A qualitative systematic review.

Aimee Grant, Bethan Pell, Lauren Copeland, Amy Brown, Rebecca Ellis, Delyth Morris, Denitza Williams, Rhiannon Phillips

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
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 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Understanding modifiable barriers to human milk donation in the United Kingdom.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Aimee GrantCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7205-5869
Bethan PellCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Lauren CopelandDECIPHer, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0387-9607
Amy BrownCentre for Lactation, Infant Feeding and Translational Research, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0438-0157
Rebecca EllisCentre for Lactation, Infant Feeding and Translational Research, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Delyth MorrisSubject Librarian, Dental and Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Denitza WilliamsDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Rhiannon PhillipsDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Cardiff University · GBSwansea University · GBUniversity Dental Hospital on Cardiff University · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 105613/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breastfeeding rates in many Global North countries are low. Qualitative research highlights that breastfeeding in public is a particular challenge, despite mothers often having the legal right to do so. To identify barriers and facilitators, we systematically searched the qualitative research from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries relating to breastfeeding in public spaces from 2007 to 2021. Data were analysed using the Thematic Synthesis technique. The review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42017081504). Database searching identified 3570 unique records. In total, 74 papers, theses, or book chapters, relating to 71 studies, were included, accounting for over 17,000 mothers. Overall, data quality was high. Our analysis identified that five core factors influenced mothers' thought processes and their breastfeeding in public behaviour: legal system; structural (in)equality; knowledge; beliefs and the social environment. Macro-level factors relating to legislation and inequality urgently require redress if breastfeeding rates are to be increased. Widespread culture change is also required to enhance knowledge, change hostile beliefs and thus the social environment in which mother/infant dyads exist. In particular, the sexualisation of breasts, disgust narratives and lack of exposure among observers to baby-led infant feeding patterns resulted in beliefs which created a stigmatising environment. In this context, many mothers felt unable to breastfeed in public; those who breastfed outside the home were usually highly self-aware, attempting to reduce their exposure to conflict. Evidence-based theoretically informed interventions to remove barriers to breastfeeding in public are urgently required.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingMothersFemaleHumansInfantMaternal BehaviorQualitative ResearchSocial Environmentbreastfeedingbreastfeeding in publicinfant feedingsexualisation of breastsshamingstigma

Identifiers

PMID35914544
PMCPMC9480936
OpenAlexW4289316562

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.