ArticlePloS one2022
Women's status, breastfeeding support, and breastfeeding practices in the United States.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictors of exclusive breastfeeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International breastfeeding journal · 2025Pooled it
- The Impact of International Board Certified Lactation Consultant (IBCLC) Support on Breastfeeding in the UK and Ireland-A Scoping Review.Maternal & child nutrition · 2026Article
- Impact of discontinuation of lactation consultant program on early infant feeding in Manitoba.International breastfeeding journal · 2025Article
- Breastfeeding Practices in Patients with Heart Disease Stratified by Area Deprivation Index.Breastfeeding medicine : the official journal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to examine associations between state-level breastfeeding support and breastfeeding practices, controlling for women's status, in the U.S. We used publicly available data on state-level breastfeeding practices and support (international board-certified lactation consultants (IBCLC), births in Baby-Friendly hospitals, and La Leche League Leaders) for births in 2015 from the CDC Breastfeeding Report Card (2018) and other CDC reported data, and indicators of women's status from the Institute for Women's Policy Research reports (2015). We conducted an ecological study to estimate incidence rate ratios of exclusive breastfeeding at six months and breastfeeding at 12 months with breastfeeding supports using bivariate and multivariable Poisson regression. Political participation, poverty, and employment and earnings were associated with breastfeeding practices, as was each breastfeeding support in bivariate analyses. After controlling for women's status, only IBCLCs were positively associated with rates of exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months and continued breastfeeding at 12 months. For every additional IBCLC per 1000 live births, the rate of exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months increased by 5 percent (95% CI 1.03, 1.07) and the rate of breastfeeding at 12 months increased by 4 percent (95% CI 1.02, 1.06). Political participation, poverty, and employment and earnings were associated with breastfeeding practices, indicating a relationship between women's political and economic status and their breastfeeding practices in the U.S. Given the influence of women's status, increasing the number of IBCLCs may improve breastfeeding practices.
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.