MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154964385 · doi:10.2196/26098

The Value of Mobile Health in Improving Breastfeeding Outcomes Among Perinatal or Postpartum Women: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021· review· en· W3154964385 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiafen Qian, Tingting Wu, Meina Lv, Zongwei Fang, Mingrong Chen, Zhiwei Zeng, Shaojun Jiang, Wenjun Chen, Jinhua Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Fujian Province
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicinemHealthPsychological interventionOverweightRandomized controlled trialBreast feedingBreast milkObstetricsObesityPediatricsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Breastfeeding is essential for maintaining the health of mothers and babies. Breastfeeding can reduce the infection rate and mortality in newborns, and can reduce the chances of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents. For mothers, a longer duration of breastfeeding can reduce the risk of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and type 2 diabetes. Although breastfeeding has many benefits, the global breastfeeding rate is low. With the progress of time, the popularity of mobile devices has increased rapidly, and interventions based on mobile health (mHealth) may have the potential to facilitate the improvement of the breastfeeding status. Objective The main objective of this study was to analyze the existing evidence to determine whether mHealth-based interventions can improve the status of breastfeeding. Methods We systematically searched multiple electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, WanFang, and Vip ) to identify eligible studies published from 1966 to October 29, 2020. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the influence of mHealth on breastfeeding. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool was used to examine the risk of publication bias. RevMan 5.3 was used to analyze the data. Results A total of 15 RCTs with a total sample size of 4366 participates met the inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, interventions based on mHealth significantly increased the postpartum exclusive breastfeeding rate (odds ratio [OR] 3.18, 95% CI 2.20-4.59; P<.001), enhanced breastfeeding self-efficacy (mean difference [MD] 8.15, 95% CI 3.79-12.51; P=.002; I2=88%), reduced health problems in infants (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.90; P=.01; I2=0%), and improved participants’ attitudes toward breastfeeding compared with usual care (MD 3.94, 95% CI 1.95-5.92; P<.001; I2=0%). There was no significant difference in the initiation of breastfeeding within an hour of birth between the intervention group and the usual care group (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55-2.90; P=.59). In addition, subgroup analysis was carried out according to different subjects and publication times. The results showed that the breastfeeding rate was not limited by the types of subjects. The breastfeeding rate based on mHealth at 1 month and 2 months after delivery did not change over the time of publication (2009 to 2020), and the breastfeeding rate based on mHealth at 3 months and 6 months after delivery gradually increased with time (2009 to 2020). Conclusions Interventions based on mHealth can significantly improve the rate of postpartum exclusive breastfeeding, breastfeeding efficacy, and participants’ attitudes toward breastfeeding, and reduce health problems in infants. Therefore, encouraging women to join the mHealth team is feasible, and breastfeeding-related information can be provided through simple measures, such as text messages, phone calls, and the internet, to improve the health of postpartum women and their babies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0800.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.347 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations64
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207