ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Defining and measuring maternal intentions and practices regarding infant feeding: a scoping review.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMaternal decisions regarding infant feeding are shaped by personal values, social and cultural factors, and healthcare guidance. Although breastfeeding is widely recommended, diverse feeding practices, including mixed and formula feeding, are common across many settings. Previous studies have examined maternal intentions and practices related to infant feeding; however, their conceptual definitions and measurement approaches vary substantially, limiting comparability across studies. The purpose of this scoping review was to systematically map how maternal intentions and practices related to infant feeding have been defined and measured in the existing literature in order to clarify methodological heterogeneity and inform future research design and measurement standardization.
methodsThis review followed a standard methodological framework, adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines and the Arksey and O’Malley framework. PubMed, CINAHL, and Ichushi-Web were used for studies published between January 2010 and June 2025. Eligible studies included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies on maternal intentions or practices regarding breastfeeding, mixed feeding, or formula feeding. Extracted variables included study characteristics, definitions and measurements of intention and practice, timing of assessment, and feeding categories.
resultsFifty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Definitions of maternal intention varied widely, ranging from single-item measures for exclusive breastfeeding to validated multi-item scales. Measurement approaches included custom questionnaires, validated scales, qualitative interviews, and single-item assessments, with considerable variations in timing. Practice was most often defined as exclusive breastfeeding; however, operational definitions differed markedly across studies, and only a few studies strictly followed the World Health Organization criteria. Mixed and formula feeding were inconsistently categorized across studies. The intention–practice gap was not specifically examined in any study as a primary outcome. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in measurement timing, feeding classifications, and data sources.
conclusionsThis review highlights substantial variability in the conceptualization and measurement of maternal intentions and practices related to infant feeding. Standardized definitions, consistent feeding classifications, and alignment of measurement timing are necessary for enhancing comparability across studies. Definitive operationalization of the intention–practice gap should be prioritized in future research to advance our understanding of maternal feeding behaviors and inform the development of supportive interventions.
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.