↓ Skip to main content

UNICEF/WHO baby-friendly hospital initiative: does the use of bottles and pacifiers in the neonatal nursery prevent successful breastfeeding?

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Pediatrics, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
UNICEF/WHO baby-friendly hospital initiative: does the use of bottles and pacifiers in the neonatal nursery prevent successful breastfeeding?
Published in
European Journal of Pediatrics, December 2012
DOI 10.1007/s004310050734
Pubmed ID
Authors

G. Schubiger, U. Schwarz, O. Tönz, For the Neonatal Study Group

Abstract

To promote breastfeeding, UNICEF/WHO have launched the "baby-friendly hospital initiative" focusing on hospital care routines during delivery and the first days of life. In industrialised countries, two aspects of the initiative have raised controversy: how do restriction of supplemental feedings and ban of bottles and pacifiers affect long-term breastfeeding performance? From ten centres 602 healthy newborns were randomly assigned either to a UNICEF group with restrictive fluid supplements and avoidance of bottles and pacifiers during the first 5 days of life, or to a standard group with conventional feeding practice. Breastfeeding was encouraged in both groups. The main study endpoints were the prevalences of breast-feeding on day 5, and after 2, 4 and 6 months. Of the newborns 46% violated the UNICEF protocol, mostly because of maternal requests to give a pacifier or supplements by bottle. In the standard group, the drop-out rate was 9.7%. No significant differences in breastfeeding frequency and duration could be found: (UNICEF vs standard) day 5: 100% vs 99%; 2 months: 88% vs 88%; 4 months: 75% vs 71%; 6 months: 57% vs 55%. Inclusion of drop-outs due to pacifier use did not alter the results. In our study population fluid supplements offered by bottle with or without the use of pacifiers during the first 5 days of life were not associated with a lower frequency or shorter duration of breastfeeding during the first 6 months of life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
Germany 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 75 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 20%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Unspecified 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 23 29%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 24%
Unspecified 6 8%
Psychology 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 16 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2021.
All research outputs
#3,000,086
of 24,088,270 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#460
of 4,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,456
of 285,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#3
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,088,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,017 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.