ArticleNutrients2022
A Qualitative Study of Parental Perceptions of Baby Food Pouches: A Netnographic Analysis.
Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Squeezed Out: Commercial Baby Food Pouch Feeding Practices, Caregiver Perceptions, Caries Experience, and Public Health Implications.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A scoping review of squeeze pouch use among infants and children: Frequency, types, sociodemographic characteristics and parental experiences.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2026Review
- A qualitative exploration of Australian parental perspectives of commercial squeeze pouches for infants and children.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Commercial Baby Foods: Nutrition, Marketing and Motivations for Use-A Narrative Review.Maternal & child nutrition · 2025Review
- How labelling of commercial infant food impacts parents' beliefs about sugar content and related purchasing and feeding decisions: a scoping review.Public health nutrition · 2025Article
- Frequent Use of Baby Food Pouches in Infants and Young Children and Associations with Energy Intake and BMI: An Observational Study.Nutrients · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Globally, a recent phenomenon in complementary feeding is the use of squeezable baby food pouches. However, some health agencies have raised concerns about their possible long-term health effects. The aim of this study was to describe parental perceptions of the use of baby food pouches during complementary feeding (i.e., the transition from an entirely milk-based diet to solid foods) using a netnographic analysis of discussions on publicly available forums. In this study, the community was parents of young children. Six parenting forums were identified through a Google search using defined selection criteria. Discussion threads relating to baby food pouches were collected and imported into NVivo12 for thematic analysis via inductive reasoning. Perceptions of baby food pouches fell within two broad categories-benefits and concerns. The most commonly reported themes related to benefits were: convenience, health, baby enjoys, variety, and cost; whereas the most common concerns reported were: health, cost, lack of dietary exposure, dependence, and waste. Many parents reported both benefits and concerns. Once research has determined the long-term effect of using pouches on infants' health regarding eating habits, nutritional status, growth, and development, the findings of this study can inform educational strategies to either encourage or discourage their use.
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.