MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947605326 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023956

Evidence on the effect of gender of newborn, antenatal care and postnatal care on breastfeeding practices in Ethiopia: a meta-analysis andmeta-regression analysis of observational studies

2019· review· en· W2947605326 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tesfa Dejenie Habtewold, Nigussie Tadesse Sharew, Sisay Mulugeta Alemu

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRijksuniversiteit Groningen
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisBreastfeedingObservational studyPopulationRandom effects modelMeta-regressionSample size determinationPublication biasCINAHLDemographyBreast feedingPediatricsStatisticsPsychological interventionEnvironmental healthNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the association of gender of newborn, antenatal care (ANC) and postnatal care (PNC) with timely initiation of breast feeding (TIBF) and exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) practices in Ethiopia. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources To retrieve all available literature, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, WHO Global Health Library, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases were systematically searched and complemented by manual searches. The search was done from August 2017 to September 2018. Eligibility criteria All observational studies including cross-sectional, case-control, cohort studies conducted in Ethiopia from 2000 to 2018 were included. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment of included studies. Data extraction and synthesis Study area, design, population, number of mothers (calculated sample size and participated in the study) and observed frequency data were extracted using Joanna Briggs Institute tool. To obtain the pooled effect size, a meta-analysis using weighted inverse variance random-effects model was performed. Cochran’s Q X 2 test, τ 2 and I 2 statistics were used to test heterogeneity, estimate amount of total/residual heterogeneity and measure variability attributed to heterogeneity, respectively. Mixed-effects meta-regression analysis was done to identify possible sources of heterogeneity. Egger’s regression test at p value threshold ≤0.01 was used to examine publication bias. Furthermore, the trend of evidence over time was examined by performing a cumulative meta-analysis. Results Of 523 articles retrieved, 17 studies (n=26 146 mothers) on TIBF and 24 studies (n=17 819 mothers) on EBF were included in the final analysis. ANC (OR=2.24, 95% CI 1.65 to 3.04, p<0.001, I 2 =90.9%), PNC (OR=1.86, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.47, p<0.001, I 2 =63.4%) and gender of newborn (OR=1.31, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.68, p=0.04, I 2 =81.7%) significantly associated with EBF. ANC (OR=1.70, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.65, p=0.02, I 2 =93.1%) was also significantly associated with TIBF but not with gender of newborn (OR=1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21, p=0.82, I 2 =66.2%). Conclusions In line with our hypothesis, gender of newborn, ANC and PNC were significantly associated with EBF. Likewise, ANC was significantly associated with TIBF. Optimal care during pregnancy and after birth is important to ensure adequate breast feeding. This meta-analysis study provided up-to-date evidence on breastfeeding practices and its associated factors, which could be useful for breastfeeding improvement initiative in Ethiopia and cross-country and cross-cultural comparison. Trial registration number CRD42017056768

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.056
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.673
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.102 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207