SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2026
Effects of Digital Health Interventions on Breastfeeding Rates, Self-Efficacy, and Knowledge: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current global status of breastfeeding is marked by both progress and challenges. Digital health interventions (DHIs) have emerged as a promising strategy for improving breastfeeding practices, yet evidence regarding their impact on breastfeeding outcomes remains limited.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of DHIs on breastfeeding practices and outcomes.
methodsFollowing PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and gray literature databases, from inception to April 2026. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‑experimental studies that enrolled pregnant women or lactating mothers using DHIs vs standard care, waiting lists, or placebo. Outcomes were exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) rates, self‑efficacy, and knowledge. Studies recruiting mothers with infectious diseases or severe substance use disorders, non‑English publications, unavailable full texts or data, animal studies, letters, conference proceedings, and studies rated as "high risk" were excluded. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2 and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. Evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). We performed the analysis using Review Manager (version 5.4) and R software (version 4.6.0), estimated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model.
resultsA total of 52 studies involving 11,704 participants were included. DHIs improved EBF rates (at <3 months: relative risk [RR] 1.33, 95% CI 1.18-1.50, 95% prediction interval [PI] 0.85-2.08; P<.001; I
conclusionsDHIs show promise for improving EBF rates and breastfeeding self-efficacy. Compared with previous reviews, this review provides a more comprehensive evaluation of DHIs and identifies potential effect modifiers through subgroup analyses, offering updated evidence for digital breastfeeding support. However, moderate risk of bias, substantial heterogeneity, wide 95% PI, and low to moderate GRADE certainty warrant cautious interpretation. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm effectiveness and optimize implementation of DHIs in clinical practice.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD420251233352; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251233352.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.