MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182630063 · doi:10.1186/s41256-021-00206-2

Barriers and facilitators for early and exclusive breastfeeding in health facilities in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3182630063 on OpenAlex
Mai‐Lei Woo Kinshella, Sarina Prasad, Tamanda Hiwa, Marianne Vidler, Alinane Linda Nyondo‐Mipando, Queen Dube, David A. Goldfarb, Kondwani Kawaza

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Research and Policy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsBreastfeedingPublic healthEnvironmental healthBreastfeeding promotionHealth promotionPromotion (chess)MedicineChild mortalityChild healthInfant mortalityEconomic growthNursingFamily medicinePolitical sciencePediatricsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sub-Saharan Africa carries a disproportionate burden of under-five child deaths in the world and appropriate breastfeeding practices can support efforts to reduce child mortality rates. Health facilities are important in the promotion of early and exclusive breastfeeding. The purpose of this review was to examine facility-based barriers and facilitators to early and exclusive breastfeeding in Sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, African Journals Online and African Index Medicus from database inception to April 29, 2021 and primary research studies on breastfeeding practices in health facilities in Sub-Saharan Africa were included in the review. We assessed qualitative studies with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist and quantitative studies using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute tool. The review protocol was registered to Prospero prior to conducting the review (CRD42020167414). RESULTS: Of the 56 included studies, relatively few described health facility infrastructure and supplies-related issues (5, 11%) while caregiver factors were frequently described (35, 74%). Facility-based breastfeeding policies and guidelines were frequently available but challenged by implementation gaps, especially at lower health service levels. Facilitators included positive caregiver and health worker attitudes, knowledge and support during the postpartum period. Current studies have focused on caregiver factors, particularly around their knowledge and attitudes, while health facility infrastructure and supplies factors appear to be growing concerns, such as overcrowding and lack of privacy during breastfeeding counselling that lowers the openness and comfort of mothers especially those HIV-positive. CONCLUSION: There has been a dramatic rise in rates of facility births in Sub-Saharan Africa, which must be taken into account when considering the capacities of health facilities to support breastfeeding practices. As the number of facility births rise in Sub-Saharan Africa, so does the responsibility of skilled healthcare workers to provide the necessary breastfeeding support and advice to caregivers. Our review highlighted that health facility infrastructure, supplies and staffing appears to be a neglected area in breastfeeding promotion and a need to strengthen respectful maternity care in the delivery of breastfeeding counselling, particularly in supporting HIV-positive mothers within the context of Sub-Saharan Africa.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.342 · 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