ArticleFrontiers in global women's health2025
Applying authoritative knowledge to better understand preparation for breastfeeding.
Article in Frontiers in global women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of Digital Health Interventions on Breastfeeding Rates, Self-Efficacy, and Knowledge: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: In this qualitative study, we employ the construct of authoritative knowledge to better understand how birthing people prepare for breastfeeding experiences postpartum. This construct has seldom been applied to the postpartum period, despite its application by reproductive anthropologists to pregnancy and childbirth experiences cross-culturally. Consistent with these applications, we define authoritative knowledge domains by the purveyors. We aimed to characterize the acquisition and valuation of information sources participants used to prepare for breastfeeding. Methods: Twenty-five participants were recruited from a hospital-based pregnancy study in Chicagoland, Illinois, USA to complete interviews between November 2020 and March 2021. Audio recorded interviews were coded using Results: All participants received information about breastfeeding from both biomedical and social network domains, with those with prior child rearing experiences also using the personal experience domain. Use of online resources like pregnancy tracking apps and social media platforms resulted in the domains of authoritative knowledge overlapping. Participants valued information from health care providers the most but found social network information was more accessible and fulfilled their desire for experiential information. Discussion: In this first application of authoritative knowledge within the context of infant feeding, participants consistently cited biomedical sources as the most accurate and important. However, they cited barriers to gaining this information such as the short duration of prenatal appointments and the challenge of completing prenatal education courses. Many participants sought evidence-based information about breastfeeding on apps, social media, and websites, however content and quality across platforms varies significantly. This may be an avenue to improve access to reliable and helpful breastfeeding information.
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.