ArticleJournal of midwifery & women's health
The Effectiveness of Online Versus Group Prenatal Education on Breastfeeding Determinants and Outcomes in Nulliparous Women: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of midwifery & women's health. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPrenatal education is key to promoting breastfeeding. To address equity and access challenges, health care facilities are increasingly offering online prenatal education in addition to in-person sessions. This study aimed to estimate the influence of online and group prenatal education services, used separately or together, on breastfeeding determinants (intentions, self-efficacy) and outcomes (initiation, exclusivity) among nulliparous pregnant persons, compared with standard prenatal care.
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted from June 2018 to September 2020 in Québec, Canada with 863 nulliparous pregnant persons from 2 adjacent regions. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 358 participants completed questionnaires at 3 time points about their use of prenatal education services in which breastfeeding-related content was optional. Based on their self-reported use, participants were divided into 5 categories: (1) face-to-face group prenatal education, (2) asynchronous online prenatal education, (3) both (with breastfeeding), (4) either group/online/both (opted out of breastfeeding content), and (5) standard prenatal care only. Repeated-measures analysis of variance, generalized linear mixed models, mixed-effects logistic regression, χ
resultsA total of 53.3% of participants chose the prenatal education services with breastfeeding information. When compared with standard prenatal care only, exposure to breastfeeding information from the online option alone or from both services was associated with breastfeeding intentions and initiation. No prenatal education services were associated with self-efficacy or exclusivity; however, higher prenatal breastfeeding self-efficacy predicted exclusivity 4 weeks after childbirth. DISCUSSION: Study findings highlight the complementary contribution of asynchronous online and in-person group prenatal education services to breastfeeding, adding to the scant literature comparing these educational options. This can help health care providers, decision-makers, and policy makers identify avenues to strengthen equity in the administration of breastfeeding education, thereby providing expectant persons with better strategies for choosing and maintaining breastfeeding.
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.