SynthesisPloS one2022
Experiences that influence how trained providers support women with breastfeeding: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Process evaluation of a breastfeeding support intervention to promote exclusive breastfeeding and reduce social inequity: a mixed-methods study in a cluster-randomised trial.International journal for equity in health · 2024Trial
- Strengthening breastfeeding counseling through a two-phase training and implementation intervention in Ecuador's local healthcare system.International breastfeeding journal · 2026Article
- Breastfeeding support for Australian hospital employees: a qualitative study.International breastfeeding journal · 2026Article
- Impact of nurse-focused Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative training program on mothers' breastfeeding practices at hospital discharge: a quasi-experimental study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Timing Routines With Patience: A Focused Ethnography on Newborn Breastfeeding in Hospitals.Maternal & child nutrition · 2026Article
- Building breastfeeding knowledgeable health systems: Focus groups with physician leaders.PloS one · 2026Article
- Can behavioral science advance breastfeeding-friendly primary care? Key findings from an evaluation in Kosovo.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- What is effective communication in breastfeeding care? Perspectives from Latina women.PloS one · 2025Article
- Factors Influence Breastfeeding Duration after High Risk and Low Risk Pregnancies.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- General practitioners' management of mastitis in breastfeeding women: a mixed method study in Australia.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Factors Associated with Provider Practices Related to Infant Feeding in Primary Care Settings: Results from a Pilot Survey.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Impact of Brief Lactation Rotation in Residency on Decision to Refer for Lactation Support.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.