Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41371728›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Study protocol for a multi-site case study evaluation of a Canadian quality improvement collaborative to improve Baby-Friendly practices in community health services.

Sarah E Turner, Jennifer E Enns, Emma Seager, Michelle LeDrew, Britney Benoit, Sonia Semenic, Erna Snelgrove-Clarke, Basirat Shittu, Diane Gordon Pappas, CBFI-C Implementation and Evaluation Team and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 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

11 authors.

Sarah E TurnerManitoba Centre for Health Policy, University of Manitoba Faculty of Health Sciences, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Nathan.Nickel@umanitoba.ca sarah.turner@umanitoba.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2541-6072
Jennifer E EnnsManitoba Centre for Health Policy, University of Manitoba Faculty of Health Sciences, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7805-7582
Emma SeagerBreastfeeding Committee for Canada, Leitches Creek, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Michelle LeDrewBreastfeeding Committee for Canada, Leitches Creek, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Britney BenoitRankin School of Nursing, St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Sonia SemenicIngram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Erna Snelgrove-ClarkeSchool of Nursing, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Basirat ShittuManitoba Centre for Health Policy, University of Manitoba Faculty of Health Sciences, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Diane Gordon PappasManitoba Centre for Health Policy, University of Manitoba Faculty of Health Sciences, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
CBFI-C Implementation and Evaluation Team
Nathan C NickelManitoba Centre for Health Policy, University of Manitoba Faculty of Health Sciences, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Nathan.Nickel@umanitoba.ca sarah.turner@umanitoba.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn Canada, many families want to breastfeed, but there are several common challenges they may encounter. Currently, 91% of Canadian families initiate breastfeeding after giving birth, yet only 38% of babies are breastfed exclusively to 6 months. In 1991, the Breastfeeding Committee for Canada (BCC) was established to implement the World Health Organization's Ten-Step Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, a series of evidence-based in-hospital practices to support families to breastfeed. Then, in recognition of the need to support breastfeeding beyond the hospital setting, the BCC expanded the Baby-Friendly Initiative (BFI) to apply the Ten Steps to both hospitals and community health settings. However, uptake of the BFI Ten Steps in community settings has been low and methodology on how to optimise implementation of the Ten Steps in community is not well developed. Therefore, the objective of this project is to develop and evaluate a quality improvement collaborative with 25 community health services from across Canada to learn how to best support the implementation of the BFI Ten Steps in community, with the ultimate goal of improving breastfeeding outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes the activities of the Community Baby-Friendly Initiative Collaborative (CBFI-C) and the methods used to evaluate its effectiveness. We will use the Institute for Healthcare Information Breakthrough Series (IHI-BTS) model, a proven quality improvement model that has been widely used in clinical settings, but is not yet widely used in community settings. The IHI-BTS combines three virtual learning sessions with action cycles that allow the participating sites time to test and track small practice changes. Sites will be asked to track care indicator and breastfeeding outcome data, engage in monthly webinars, receive coaching from trained mentors, participate in focus groups and participate in a final summative workshop. We will use a multi-site case study approach, combining aggregate care indicator data and qualitative data from webinars, focus groups and workshops to evaluate how the CBFI-C model supports community sites in the process of implementing the BFI Ten Steps. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for this evaluation was obtained from the CHIPER Health Research Ethics Board (Number HS26947-H2025:157)). The results of the CBFI-C evaluation will be shared in a report, peer-reviewed publications and presentations to government and academic audiences. The findings will inform effective quality improvement strategies to enhance uptake of the BFI in community health settings.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingCommunity Health ServicesHealth PromotionQuality ImprovementCanadaFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornProgram EvaluationResearch DesignCommunity child healthPUBLIC HEALTHQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID41371728
PMCPMC12699582

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.