Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36006012›Full record

SynthesisMaternal & child nutrition2022

Factors that influence women's engagement with breastfeeding support: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

Theresa Bengough, Shoba Dawson, Hui-Lin Cheng, Alison McFadden, Anna Gavine, Rebecca Rees, Emma Sacks, Karin Hannes

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic 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 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.2field-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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Theresa BengoughResearch Group SoMeTHin'K (Social, Methodological and Theoretical Innovation/Kreative), Faculty of Social Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7716-364X
Shoba DawsonFaculty of Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6700-6445
Hui-Lin ChengSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0002-6117-3832
Alison McFaddenSchool of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5164-2025
Anna GavineSchool of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3750-2445
Rebecca ReesEPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1413-1952
Emma SacksDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0743-7208
Karin HannesResearch Group SoMeTHin'K (Social, Methodological and Theoretical Innovation/Kreative), Faculty of Social Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
University of Dundee · GBEarly Intervention Foundation · GBHong Kong Polytechnic University · HKJohns Hopkins University · USKU Leuven · BEUK Dementia Research Institute · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breastfeeding is an integral part of early childhood interventions as it can prevent serious childhood and maternal illnesses. For breastfeeding support programmes to be effective, a better understanding of contextual factors that influence women's engagement and satisfaction with these programmes is needed. The aim of this synthesis is to suggest strategies to increase the level of satisfaction with support programmes and to better match the expectations and needs of women. We systematically searched for studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis and that focused on women's experiences and perceptions regarding breastfeeding support programmes. We applied a maximum variation purposive sampling strategy and used thematic analysis. We assessed the methodological quality of the studies using a modified version of the CASP tool and assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We included 51 studies of which we sampled 22 for in-depth analysis. Our sampled studies described the experiences of women with formal breastfeeding support by health care professionals in a hospital setting and informal support as for instance from community support groups. Our findings illustrate that the current models of breastfeeding support are dependent on a variety of contextual factors encouraging and supporting women to initiate and continue breastfeeding. They further highlight the relevance of providing different forms of support based on socio-cultural norms and personal backgrounds of women, especially if the support is one-on-one. Feeding decisions of women are situated within a woman's personal situation and may require diverse forms of support.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingHealth PersonnelChild, PreschoolFamilyFemaleHumansPostnatal CarePregnancyQualitative Researchbreastfeedingbreastfeeding supportcontextual factorsearly childhood interventionspolicy and practicequalitative systematic synthesis

Identifiers

PMID36006012
PMCPMC9480951
OpenAlexW4293052163

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.