Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33938280›Full record

SynthesisPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2021

Relatively speaking? Partners' and family members' views and experiences of supporting breastfeeding: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.

Yan-Shing Chang, Kan Man Carmen Li, Kan Yan Chloe Li, Sarah Beake, Kris Yuet Wan Lok, Debra Bick

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Understanding modifiable barriers to human milk donation in the United Kingdom.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Antenatal Classes in the Context of Prenatal Anxiety and Depression during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Yan-Shing ChangFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Kan Man Carmen LiGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Kan Yan Chloe LiInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, UK.
Sarah BeakeFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Kris Yuet Wan LokSchool of Nursing, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Debra BickWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Hong Kong · HKUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review aimed to synthesize qualitative evidence of views and experiences of partners and other family members who provided breastfeeding support for a relative. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence was followed. Seven databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Maternal and Infant Care, and Web of Science were searched. Partners and other family members (e.g. grandmothers, siblings) of women in any countries were included. Included papers were critically appraised. The JBI meta-aggregative approach was used to analyze data and form synthesized findings. Seventy-six papers from 74 studies were included. Five synthesized findings were: (i) spectrum of family members' breastfeeding knowledge, experiences and roles; (ii) the complexity of infant feeding decision making; (iii) the controversy of breastfeeding in front of others; (iv) impact of breastfeeding on family; and (v) it takes more than just family members: support for family members. Partners' and family members' views and experiences of breastfeeding support reflected multi-faceted personal, social, financial, cultural, religious, emotional, psychological, and societal factors of the support they provided (or not). Healthcare professionals should engage them in breastfeeding discussions with the woman, and offer tailored and practical guidance relevant to help them to appropriately support the woman. This article is part of the theme issue 'Multidisciplinary perspectives on social support and maternal-child health'.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingFamilyHumansSpousesbreastfeedingfamilyqualitative systematic reviewsocial support

Identifiers

PMID33938280
PMCPMC8090822
OpenAlexW3157941395

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.