ArticleBMC nutrition2026
Socioeconomic status and psychosocial or contextual factors related to the use of infant formula and follow-up milk: a survey among Japanese mothers.
Article in BMC nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Japan, the total fertility rate is declining and protecting children’s health is one of the most important health issues that the country has to face. Socioeconomic status (SES) and psychosocial or contextual factors are associated with the use and comprehension of food labeling information. Low SES is associated with high use of infant formula (IF), which is related to childhood obesity. This aim of this study was to examine the relationship between SES and psychosocial or contextual factors, and the appropriate use of IF and follow-up milk (FUM).
methodsA web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted in January 2024 among 515 mothers of infants and young children living in Japan to investigate whether they were using IF and FUM appropriately, and whether they understood the difference between them. Not using the purpose-built spoon or hot water during preparation, providing IF or FUM to the child more than 2 h after preparation, adding any additional products to IF or FUM, or mistakenly using IF and FUM, interchangeably were considered instances of inappropriate use. Information on SES and psychosocial or contextual factors, including household composition, main occupation, and educational history, was also collected. Differences in SES and psychosocial or contextual factors were examined using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact probability test.
resultsAdding other materials to IF or FUM was reported by 42.3% and 28.7% of the respondents, respectively. Among the respondents, 37.9% used IF for children over the age of 1 year aged over 1 year and 24.3% gave FUM to children under the age of 1 year aged under 1 year. Additionally, 1.8% of the respondents were unaware that IF is a breast milk substitute, whereas 13.2% were unaware that FUM is not. The use of IF and FUM differed significantly according to psychological stress (p = 0.034), household composition (p < 0.050), main occupation (p = 0.019), and educational history (p = 0.032).
conclusionsPsychological stress, household composition, main occupation, and educational history were associated with inappropriate use. Therefore, it would be beneficial to provide relevant targeted information about these products to caregivers.
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.