Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39797637›Full record

ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2025

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on commercial milk formula marketing in the UK: a qualitative study.

Eilidh McNaughton, Lydia Chen, Andrea D Smith, Rana Conway

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 2025. 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

4 authors.

Eilidh McNaughtonResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Lydia ChenMRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
Andrea D SmithMRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK andrea.smith@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.
Rana ConwayResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0955-7107

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo understand (1) healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perceptions and experiences of commercial milk formula (CMF) marketing to consumers and HCPs and (2) HCPs' perspectives on regulation of CMF marketing.

settingUK.

designIn-person and online interviews with 41 HCPs with regular contact with pregnant women and mothers. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted from October 2019 to March 2021, focusing on experiences of CMF marketing and perceptions of legislation. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

resultsThree themes were developed: (1) '

conclusionsReduced contact with CMF representatives was reported by HCPs covered by the BFI but continued or increased contact was seen with other HCPs. HCPs believed CMF marketing impacted women's beliefs about infant feeding and they had to work hard to provide a balanced perspective. HCPs wanted stricter regulation of CMF marketing.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth PersonnelInfant FormulaMarketingAdultBreast FeedingFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePregnancyQualitative ResearchUnited KingdomChild HealthPaediatricsQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID39797637
PMCPMC12013554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.