Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41916664›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2026

Peer support intervention (ABA-feed) to improve breastfeeding: UK based, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.

Kate Jolly, Joanne Clarke, Nicola Crossland, Stephan U Dombrowski, Eleni Gkini, Pat Hoddinott, Jenny Ingram, Debbie Johnson, Christine MacArthur, Mia Mann and 12 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2026. 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. Review
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

22 authors.

Kate JollyDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6224-2115
Joanne ClarkeDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Nicola CrosslandMaternal, Parental, and Infant Nutrition and Nurture Unit, University of Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Stephan U DombrowskiFaculty of Kinesiology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada.
Eleni GkiniBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Pat HoddinottCentre for Healthcare and Community Research, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Jenny IngramCentre for Academic Child Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Debbie JohnsonCentre for Academic Child Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Christine MacArthurDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Mia MannDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Jennifer McKellInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Ngawai MossPatient author, Southend-on-Sea, UK.
Tracy RobertsHealth Economics Unit, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Julia SandersSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Nicola SavorySchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Alice SitchDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Beck TaylorWarwick Applied Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Sarah TearneBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Gill ThomsonMaternal, Parental, and Infant Nutrition and Nurture Unit, University of Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Eleanor WilliamsHealth Economics Unit, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Rebecca WoolleyBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
ABA-feed study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the effect of a proactive, assets based, peer support infant feeding intervention in addition to usual care on breastfeeding rates, formula feeding practices, and other outcomes, compared with usual breastfeeding support alone.

designUK based, multicentre, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial.

setting17 localities in the UK that offered breastfeeding peer support as part of usual care between January 2022 and 30 April 2024.

participants2475 nulliparous women between 20 and 35 weeks of gestation were randomised 1.43:1, to account for potential clustering by peer supporter: 1458 to the ABA-feed (Assets based feeding help Before and After birth-feed) peer support intervention and 1017 to usual care.

interventionsThe ABA-feed intervention comprised person centred proactive peer support for infant feeding underpinned by an assets based approach (focusing on the capabilities of, and resources available to, participants) and behaviour change theory delivered in person and remotely by text and telephone call. Usual care included universal care from midwives and health visitors and could also include services that provided reactive support such as peer supporters in breastfeeding groups, counselling, helplines, and social media support groups.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was any breastfeeding at eight weeks after birth. Secondary outcomes at eight, 16, and 24 weeks after birth included breastfeeding initiation, any and exclusive breastfeeding, formula feeding practices, anxiety, social support, and healthcare utilisation. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle.

resultsRates of any breastfeeding at eight weeks did not differ between the intervention group (1013/1452; 69.8%) and usual care group (698/1015; 68.8%); adjusted risk difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.04. Preplanned subgroup analyses showed no interactions between the intervention and age, prespecified feeding intentions, mother's education, index of multiple deprivation fifth, or relationship status. Breastfeeding initiation rates were high (intervention 94.2%; usual care 92.5%). At eight weeks the intervention group reported higher social support, but this was not sustained at 16 weeks. No differences were observed in other secondary outcomes.

conclusionThe ABA-feed peer support intervention did not improve breastfeeding rates compared with usual breastfeeding support in a UK context.

trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN17395671.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingHealth PromotionMothersPeer GroupSocial SupportAdultCounselingFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID41916664
PMCPMC13036591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.