Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36710359›Full record

ArticleInternational breastfeeding journal2023

Maternity protection entitlements for non-standard workers in low-and-middle-income countries and potential implications for breastfeeding practices: a scoping review of research since 2000.

Catherine Pereira-Kotze, Alison Feeley, Tanya Doherty, Mieke Faber

Erratum issuedAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International breastfeeding journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Catherine Pereira-KotzeSchool of Public Health, University of the Western Cape (UWC), Cape Town, South Africa. catherinejanepereira@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3061-6511
Alison FeeleySouth African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit (DPHRU), School of Clinical Medicine, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2526-6097
Tanya DohertySchool of Public Health, University of the Western Cape (UWC), Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1592-0080
Mieke FaberNon-communicable Diseases Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC), Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8878-254X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecommended breastfeeding practices contribute to improved health of infants, young children, and mothers. Access to comprehensive maternity protection would enable working women to breastfeed for longer. Women working in positions of non-standard employment are particularly vulnerable to not accessing maternity protection entitlements. The objective of this scoping review was to determine the current research conducted on maternity protection available and accessible to non-standard workers in low-and-middle-income countries and any potential implications for breastfeeding practices.

methodsNine databases were searched using search terms related to maternity protection, non-standard employment, and breastfeeding. Documents in English published between January 2000 and May 2021 were included. The approach recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute was used to select sources, extract, and present data. The types of participants included in the research were female non-standard workers of child-bearing age. The core concept examined by the scoping review was the availability and access to comprehensive maternity protection entitlements of pregnant and breastfeeding women. Research from low-and-middle-income countries was included. The types of evidence sources were limited to primary research.

resultsSeventeen articles were included for data extraction mainly from research conducted in Africa and Asia. Research on maternity protection for non-standard workers mostly focused on childcare. Components of maternity protection are inconsistently available and often inaccessible to women working in non-standard employment. Inaccessibility of maternity protection was described to disrupt breastfeeding both directly and indirectly, but certain characteristics of non-standard work were found to be supportive of breastfeeding.

conclusionsPublished information on maternity protection for non-standard workers is limited. However, the available information indicates that non-standard workers have inadequate and inconsistent access to maternity protection rights. The expansion of comprehensive maternity protection to all women working in positions of non-standard employment could encourage significant social and economic benefits.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingWomen, WorkingChild, PreschoolDeveloping CountriesEmploymentFemaleHumansInfantMaleMothersPregnancyBreastfeedingLow-and-middle-income countriesMaternity protectionNon-standard work

Identifiers

PMID36710359
PMCPMC9885632

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.