Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023
Does benefits-of-breastfeeding language or risks-of-formula-feeding language promote more-positive attitudes toward breastfeeding among midwives and nurses?
Trial report in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMidwives and nurses are crucial in breastfeeding support. Few studies have explored appropriate language for nursing education on breastfeeding. We assessed the impact of the language used on breastfeeding attitudes among midwives and nurses.
methodsA quasi-experimental study was conducted online in Japan among 174 midwives and nurses who had work experience in obstetrics or pediatrics. Participants were allocated to three groups to receive different text messages as the intervention (the benefit of breastfeeding for Group 1; the risk of formula feeding for Group 2; the importance of childcare for Group 3 as the comparison). The Japanese version of the Iowa Infant Feeding Attitude Scale (IIFAS-J) was used to assess breastfeeding attitudes before and after reading the texts. Also, participant reactions to the text were assessed by their responses to three statements. ANOVA, the chi-square test, and the t-test were used for outcome assessments.
resultsThe post-test IIFAS-J score was significantly higher than the pre-test score only for Group 1 (p < 0.01). The percentage of participants who agreed with the content of the text was 70.7% in Group 1 and 48.3% in Group 2. The percentage of participants who reported discomfort with the text was 34.5% in Group 1 and 55.2% in Group 2. No significant difference among groups existed regarding interest in the text. In all three groups, participants who agreed with the text had a higher post-test IIFAS-J score than those who disagreed with the text (6.85 points higher, p < 0.01 in Group 1; 7.19 points higher, p < 0.01 in Group 2; 8.00 points higher, p < 0.02 in Group 3). Discomfort with the text and interest in the text were associated with a significantly higher post-test IIFAS-J score in Group 1 and Group 2 but not in Group 3.
conclusions"Benefits of breastfeeding" language, which conveys the information in a positive manner, appears to be more appropriate than "risks of infant formula" language for creating a positive attitude toward breastfeeding in nursing education.
trial registrationThis study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000023322). Registered 05/08/2016.
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.