ArticleSAGE open nursing
Health Professionals' Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitudes Toward Baby-Led Weaning: Scoping Review.
Article in SAGE open nursing. 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.
- Breastfeeding cessation decisions, practices, and Support-seeking Among mothers in Tehran, Iran: a cross-sectional study.International breastfeeding journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Baby-led weaning (BLW) is a growing method for parents to introduce food to their kids. As advisers who affect the decisions of parents, health practitioners have significant obligations in this regard. Objective: We aim to identify existing literature on the knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes of health professionals toward BLW. Methods: We carried out a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. After registering with Open Science Framework, published articles were retrieved from EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, ScienceDirect, Open Grey, and the Portuguese Scientific Open Access Repository. Primary studies with full-text availability in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, and no data publication limitations were included. Results: The final sample included seven publications conducted in five countries published between 2012 and 2022. Only one study employed a hybrid methodology showing incongruent practices in parents/health professionals on BLW, whereas most studies employed a quantitative approach. Regarding BLW, it is recognized that there is a dearth of evidence, consensus, and advice. Conclusion: Despite benefits, health professionals hesitate to recommend BLW due to insufficient study and safety concerns, warranting more research. Hence, our scoping review demonstrated that BLW is a scientifically under-researched subject, indicating a significant research gap that must be filled in the future.
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.