ArticlePediatric research2023
Experiences and opinions towards baby-led weaning by healthcare professionals. A qualitative study.
Article in Pediatric research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Caregivers' Attitudes Toward Baby-Led Weaning: Development and Psychometric Validation of the BLW-CAS.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Health professionals' knowledge and attitudes towards baby led weaning: A cross-sectional, exploratory, and observational study.PloS one · 2026Observational
- Translation and validation of health professionals' knowledge and attitudes instrument regarding Baby-Led Weaning approach into European Portuguese.Journal of public health research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBaby-led weaning (BLW) is an alternative method to spoon-feeding to introduce solid foods. This study aimed to describe and understand the experiences and opinions of pediatricians and pediatric nurse specialists of the implementation of the BLW approach.
methodsAn interpretive descriptive qualitative research was carried out. A focus group with 7 participants and 13 face-to-face interviews were conducted between February and May 2022 (17 females and 3 males). All were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with the supported by Atlas.Ti qualitative data analysis software.
resultsFrom the data, two themes developed: (1) BLW as an ideal method of introducing solid food, with the subthemes: "a natural method of introducing complementary feeding" and "BLW is a safe method"; (2) Perceived barriers to the uptake of the BLW method, with the subthemes: "a lack of BLW training prevents the best practice" and "the influence of family and social context on parents."
conclusionsHealthcare professionals perceive BLW to be a safe and natural weaning approach. The lack of training of healthcare professionals and the influence of family social context on parents may limit the implementation of BLW. IMPACT: Baby-led weaning is perceived by healthcare professionals as a safe complementary feeding method that promotes chewing, improves growth, and the development of fine motor skills. However, lack of training of healthcare professionals and the family social context of the parents hinders the uptake of baby-led weaning. The views of the family and parents' social context about baby-led weaning may restrict their willingness to use the method. Family education delivered by healthcare professionals may avoid risks and allay parental anxieties about safety.
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.