Effect of antenatal peer support on breastfeeding initiation: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to examine the effect of antenatal peer support on rates of breastfeeding initiation. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized trials and cohort studies with concurrent controls. We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the National Research Register and the British Nursing Index from inception or from 1980 to 2009. We carried out study selection, data abstraction and quality assessment independently and in duplicate. We defined high-quality studies as those that minimized the risk of at least three of the following types of bias: selection, performance, measurement and attrition bias. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for individual studies and undertook separate meta-analyses for high-quality trials of universal peer support and targeted peer support. We did not include low-quality studies. RESULTS: We selected 11 studies, which involved 5445 women in total. Seven of these studies (involving 4416 women in total) evaluated universal peer support, and four studies (involving 1029 women in total) targeted antenatal peer support. In the three high-quality studies of universal peer support, all involving low-income women, the relative risk for not initiating breastfeeding was 0.96 (95% CI 0.76-1.22). In the three high-quality studies of antenatal peer support that targeted women considering breastfeeding, the relative risk for not initiating breastfeeding was 0.64 (95% CI 0.41-0.99). INTERPRETATION: Universal antenatal peer support does not appear to improve rates of breastfeeding initiation, but targeted antenatal peer support may be beneficial. This effect may be related to context, however, so any new peer-support program should undergo concurrent high-quality evaluation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".