Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39380053›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal for equity in health2024

Process evaluation of a breastfeeding support intervention to promote exclusive breastfeeding and reduce social inequity: a mixed-methods study in a cluster-randomised trial.

Henriette Knold Rossau, Anne Kristine Gadeberg, Katrine Strandberg-Larsen, Ingrid Maria Susanne Nilsson, Sarah Fredsted Villadsen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal for equity in health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05311631 (Breastfeeding - a Good Start Together), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT05311631 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Breastfeeding - a Good Start Together

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of CopenhagenRan2022 to 2028Enrolled5,010ConditionsBreastfeeding, Breastfeeding, ExclusiveArmsBreastfeeding support
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors.

Henriette Knold RossauSection of Social Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353, Copenhagen, Denmark. Henriette.rossau@sund.ku.dk.
Anne Kristine GadebergSection of Social Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Katrine Strandberg-LarsenSection of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ingrid Maria Susanne NilssonThe Danish Committee for Health Education, Classensgade 71, 5, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sarah Fredsted VilladsenSection of Social Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreastfeeding is a powerful public health intervention that produces long-term health benefits. However, in high-income countries such as Denmark, breastfeeding rates are suboptimal and unequally distributed across socio-economic positions. The 'Breastfeeding - a good start together' intervention, to promote longer duration of exclusive breastfeeding and reduce social inequity, was implemented in a cluster-randomised trial during 2022-2023 across 21 municipalities in two Danish regions. A process evaluation was conducted to assess the implementation, mechanisms of impact, and possible contextual factors affecting the intervention.

methodsThe study was guided by the Medical Research Council's guidance for conducting process evaluations and employed a mixed-methods approach in a convergence design. Quantitative data: contextual mapping survey (n = 20), health visitor survey (n = 284), health visitor records from 20 clusters and intervention website statistics. Qualitative data: dialogue meetings (n = 7), focus groups (n = 3) and interviews (n = 8).

resultsOverall, the intervention was delivered as planned to intended recipients, with few exceptions. Health visitors responded positively to the intervention, noting that it fitted well within their usual practice and enhanced families' chances of breastfeeding. Mothers expressed having received the intervention with few exceptions, and reacted positively to the intervention. Although health visitors were concerned about the potential stigmatisation of mothers receiving the intensified intervention, none of the interviewed mothers felt stigmatised. Contextual factors impacting the intervention implementation and mechanisms included staff and management turnover, project infrastructure and mothers' context, such as resources, social networks and previous experiences. The overall fidelity of the intervention delivery was high.

conclusionsHealth visitors and families responded well to the intervention. Interventions aimed at enabling health care providers to deliver simplified and structured breastfeeding support, in alignment with support provided in other sectors of the health care system, may increase breastfeeding rates and reduce social inequity in breastfeeding, even in international contexts.

trial registrationClinical Trials: NCT05311631. First posted April 5, 2022.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingHealth PromotionAdultCluster AnalysisDenmarkFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMothersProcess Assessment, Health CareSocial SupportSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesBreastfeedingCluster-randomised trialComplex interventionsDelivery of health careHealth visitingImplementationInfant healthProcess evaluationPublic healthSocioeconomic factors

Identifiers

PMID39380053
PMCPMC11463148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.