Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36050746›Full record

ArticleInternational breastfeeding journal2022

Effect of baby food marketing exposure on infant and young child feeding regimes in Bangkok, Thailand.

Nisachol Cetthakrikul, Matthew Kelly, Phillip Baker, Cathy Banwell, Julie Smith

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International breastfeeding journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nisachol CetthakrikulNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. nisachol.cetthakrikul@anu.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9238-9583
Matthew KellyNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Phillip BakerInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Cathy BanwellNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Julie SmithNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Australian National University · AUDeakin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBaby food marketing undermines breastfeeding by influencing women's attitudes and decision-making favourably toward commercial baby food. This study aimed to explore the effects of various baby food marketing techniques on Thai mothers' opinions about commercial milk formulas (CMF) and commercial complementary foods (CCF) and their infant and young child feeding behaviours.

methodsThis study used a cross-sectional survey employing the World Health Organization (WHO) NetCode Toolkit Protocol for Periodic Assessment, and the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey to collect data on mothers' experience with and their opinion on the various types of marketing of CMF and CCF, and their feeding behaviour. Data collection used structured interviews of mothers with children aged two years or below attending 33 health facilities in Bangkok. Univariable and multivariable regression analysis then investigated links between mothers' reported exposure to baby food marketing and their infant and young child feeding behaviours, employing a semantic scale and considering key sociodemographic and other variables.

resultsThree hundred and thirty mothers were surveyed in Bangkok. Around 90% reported experiencing exposure to at least one type of baby food marketing during the previous six months, mostly from electronic media. More than half of the women had positive opinions of CMF. Virtually all children had been breastfed initially, but 74.6% were given CMF and 72.8% stopped breastfeeding before six months. Multivariable analysis showed that mothers who lived in a couple were significantly less likely to favour CMF, and mothers in middle-income households and those who had received advice about CMF from others were more likely to have a favourable opinion. Mothers in formal employment were over six times more likely to feed formula than those not in employment. Women who experienced baby food marketing at health facilities were four times more likely to feed CMF to their children than those not experiencing such marketing.

conclusionsSpecific types of baby food marketing were strongly linked to mothers' opinions on and use of CMF in Bangkok, Thailand. It is recommended that breastfeeding policies in health facilities and employment are fully implemented and enforced.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingInfant FoodChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfantMarketingThailandBaby food marketingInfant and young child feeding behaviourThailand

Identifiers

PMID36050746
PMCPMC9435428
OpenAlexW4294018494

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.