Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39592968›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Breastfeeding support during the Covid-19 pandemic in England: analysis of a national survey.

Maria A Quigley, Sian Harrison, Ilana Levene, Phyllis Buchanan, Jenny McLeish, Fiona Alderdice

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Maria A QuigleyDepartment of Population Health, NIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, NuffieldOxford, UK. maria.quigley@npeu.ox.ac.uk.
Sian HarrisonDepartment of Population Health, NIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, NuffieldOxford, UK.
Ilana LeveneDepartment of Population Health, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, NuffieldOxford, UK.
Phyllis BuchananBreastfeeding Supporter, The Breastfeeding Network, Paisley, UK.
Jenny McLeishDepartment of Population Health, NIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, NuffieldOxford, UK.
Fiona AlderdiceDepartment of Population Health, NIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, NuffieldOxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreastfeeding support interventions are associated with longer breastfeeding duration. Contemporary nationally representative data on breastfeeding support as reported by women in England is lacking. Using English national maternity survey data, we describe sources and modes of breastfeeding support as reported by women who gave birth in 2020; sources of support are compared with earlier maternity surveys (2014, 2016, 2018). We also explore the characteristics associated with source/mode of support in 2020 (n = 4,611).

methodsWomen who breastfed were asked about sources of breastfeeding support (midwife; other health professional; other formal breastfeeding support such as breastfeeding specialist, breastfeeding support group, peer supporter; and partner/friend/relative), how this help was given and whether they would have liked more help from a health professional with breastfeeding. Adjusted risk ratios (aRR) for the association between sociodemographic and pregnancy-related variables and each source/mode of support were estimated using modified Poisson regression.

resultsFrom 2014 to 2020 support from midwives and other health professionals declined (from 84.0% to 64.7%, and 61.6% to 15.5% respectively) whereas other formal breastfeeding support and informal support from partners/friends/relatives remained constant at 27-31% and 34-38% respectively. The proportion of women who wanted more help with breastfeeding increased from 30% in 2014-2018 to 46% in 2020. In 2020, women most likely to want more help with breastfeeding were nulliparous (aRR = 1.64, 95%CI:1.50-1.79), younger (aRR = 1.21, 95%CI:1.03-1.42) and of Pakistani ethnicity (aRR = 1.30, 95%CI:1.06-1.60). Receiving breastfeeding support over the phone (35%) was more common than via video call (13%) or text message (5%); these percentages varied according to socio-demographic and pregnancy-related factors.

conclusionsBreastfeeding support has declined in recent years, and did not meet the needs of many women during the pandemic. Planning for a future emergency should include adequate provision of breastfeeding support particularly if staff are redeployed into other roles. The characteristics associated with support can inform service planning and delivery. Future research should use these factors to develop novel ideas for intervention, such as directly targeting partners or other informal networks with educational or psychosocial interventions.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingCOVID-19Social SupportAdolescentAdultEnglandFemaleHumansPandemicsPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultBreastfeedingBreastfeeding supportCovid-19Health professionalInfant feedingPandemicPeer supportSurvey

Identifiers

PMID39592968
PMCPMC11590229

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.