Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39223645›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2024

An exploration of prenatal breastfeeding self-efficacy: a scoping review.

Liz M McGovern, Laura O'Toole, Rachel A Laws, Timothy C Skinner, Fionnuala M McAuliffe, Sharleen L O'Reilly

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Liz M McGovernUCD School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, D04 V1W8, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9910-9940
Laura O'TooleUCD Perinatal Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, Dublin 2, D02 YH21, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9037-8871
Rachel A LawsSchool of Exercise & Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4328-1116
Timothy C SkinnerInstitute of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen K, 1353, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0018-6963
Fionnuala M McAuliffeUCD Perinatal Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, Dublin 2, D02 YH21, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3477-6494
Sharleen L O'ReillyUCD School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, D04 V1W8, Ireland. sharleen.oreilly@ucd.ie.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3547-6634

Funding

Horizon 2020 847984National Health and Medical Research Council GNT1194234
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreastfeeding self-efficacy is a woman's self-belief and confidence in her perceived ability to breastfeed. This modifiable determinant is strongly associated with breastfeeding initiation, exclusivity, and duration. It is unclear how important the timing of breastfeeding self-efficacy measurement and interventions are. The prenatal period appears underexplored in the literature and yet a prenatal focus provides increased opportunity for breastfeeding self-efficacy enhancement and further potential improvement in breastfeeding outcomes. This scoping review aims to synthesise the evidence on prenatal breastfeeding self-efficacy, describing for the first time the theoretical frameworks, measurement tools, and interventions used in the prenatal period.

methods8 databases were searched using the PCC framework (Problem: breastfeeding, Concept: self-efficacy, Context: prenatal period). From 4,667 citations and 156 additional sources identified through grey literature and snowballing, data were extracted from 184 studies and 2 guidance documents. All were summarised descriptively and narratively.

resultsJust over half (57%) of included studies stated their theoretical underpinning, with Bandura's Self-Efficacy Theory / Dennis' Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Framework predominant. Only half of intervention studies incorporated theory in their design. More intervention studies were undertaken in the past decade than previously, but the level of theoretical underpinning has not improved. Prenatal interventions incorporating theory-led design and using components addressing the breadth of theory, more frequently reported improving breastfeeding self-efficacy and breastfeeding outcomes than those not theory-led. Intervention components used less frequently were vicarious or kinaesthetic learning (52.5%) and involvement of social circle support (26%). The Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scales were the most common measurement tool, despite being designed for postpartum use. Overall, issues were identified with the late prenatal timing of breastfeeding self-efficacy investigation and the design, content and phraseology of measurements and interventions used in the prenatal period.

conclusionThis review provides novel insights for consideration in the design and conduct of breastfeeding self-efficacy studies in the prenatal period. Future research should aim to be theory-led, commence earlier in pregnancy, and embed the breadth of self-efficacy theory into the design of interventions and measurement tools. This would provide more robust data on prenatal breastfeeding self-efficacy's role in impacting breastfeeding outcomes.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingSelf EfficacyFemaleHumansMothersPregnancyAntenatalBreastfeedingConfidenceLactationPrenatal careSelf efficacy

Identifiers

PMID39223645
PMCPMC11367871

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.