4.6 Review

Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of educational interventions for breastfeeding promotion directed to the woman and her social network

Journal

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
Volume 73, Issue 2, Pages 323-335

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jan.13104

Keywords

breast feeding; family health; health promotion; literature review; maternal-child nursing; meta-analysis; nurses; social support; systematic review

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimThe aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of educational interventions focusing on women and their social network for the promotion of exclusive breastfeeding up to the age of 6months. BackgroundDespite the advantages of breastfeeding and strategies available for its promotion, early weaning is common worldwide. DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis based on the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Data sourcesA search was performed in databases (LILACS, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Library), reference lists and grey literature. There was no limitation on the studies' year of publication. Review methodsJBI-MAStARI software were used. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata version 130. The effect was estimated by odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. ResultsOf 7201 identified studies, 11 made up the review's corpus. Educational interventions were about twice as effective compared with routine interventions used in the control groups. It was evident that educational interventions have focused only on the woman and have not covered all five types of support she needs to breastfeed. ConclusionEducational interventions were about twice as effective in promoting exclusive breastfeeding at 6months old. There is a need for further studies applying interventions that address women and their social network from the prenatal period, considering all types of support.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available