Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36240230›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

Experiences that influence how trained providers support women with breastfeeding: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.

Mary Jo Chesnel, Maria Healy, Jenny McNeill

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Mary Jo ChesnelSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Medical Biology Centre, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-0285-0063
Maria HealySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Medical Biology Centre, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Jenny McNeillSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Medical Biology Centre, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is a need to improve breastfeeding support interventions as although many are evidence-based, a sequential increase in breastfeeding rates is not evident. It is crucial to understand why the implementation of evidence-based guidelines in practice does not always translate to positive experiences for women and improve breastfeeding rates. This systematic review aims to synthesise breastfeeding support experiences of trained support providers and their impact on breastfeeding support practices.

methodsA strategy was developed to search seven databases including Medline and CINAHL and grey literature for qualitative studies. Studies eligible for inclusion reported professional and trained peer experiences of supporting women to breastfeed. PRISMA guidelines were followed and included studies were quality appraised using the CASP Qualitative Checklist. A thematic synthesis of included studies was undertaken and confidence in the review findings was assessed using the CERQual tool. The study protocol, registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020207380, has been peer reviewed and published.

findingsA total of 977 records were screened, which identified 18 studies (21 papers) eligible for inclusion comprising 368 participants. Following quality appraisal, all studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. The thematic synthesis resulted in four analytical themes: 1) A personal philosophy of breastfeeding support 2) Teamwork and tensions in practice 3) Negotiating organisational constraints and 4) Encounters with breastfeeding women. Findings demonstrated that a range of experiences influence practice, and practice evolves on continued exposure to such experiences. The potential of each experience to facilitate or inhibit breastfeeding support provision is fluid and context specific.

conclusionsExperiences, as named above, are modifiable factors contributing to the development of a philosophy of breastfeeding support based on what the provider believes works and is valuable in practice. Further research is required into the range of factors which underpin context-specific breastfeeding support practice, to improve both women's experiences and intervention effectiveness.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID36240230
PMCPMC9565393

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.