| Title |
Baby‐led compared with scheduled (or mixed) breastfeeding for successful breastfeeding
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009067.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne Fallon, Deirdre Van der Putten, Cindy Dring, Edina H Moylett, Gerard Fealy, Declan Devane |
| Abstract |
Baby-led breastfeeding is recommended as best practice in determining the frequency and duration of a breastfeed. An alternative approach is described as scheduled, where breastfeeding is timed and restricted in frequency and duration. It is necessary to review the evidence that supports current recommendations, so that women are provided with high-quality evidence to inform their feeding decisions. To evaluate the effects of baby-led compared with scheduled (or mixed) breastfeeding for successful breastfeeding, for healthy newborns. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 February 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 23 February 2016), EThOS, Index to Theses and ProQuest database and World Health Organization's 1998 evidence to support the 'Ten Steps' to successful breastfeeding (10 May 2016). We planned to include randomised and quasi-randomised trials with randomisation at both the individual and cluster level. Studies presented in abstract form would have been eligible for inclusion if sufficient data were available. Studies using a cross-over design would not have been eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. We would have resolved any disagreement through discussion or, if required, consulted a third review author, but this was not necessary. No studies were identified that were eligible for inclusion in this review. This review demonstrates that there is no evidence from randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of baby-led compared with scheduled (or mixed) breastfeeding for successful breastfeeding, for healthy newborns. It is recommended that no changes are made to current practice guidelines without undertaking robust research, to include many patterns of breastfeeding and not limited to baby-led and scheduled breastfeeding. Future exploratory research is needed on baby-led breastfeeding that takes the mother's perspective into consideration. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 27% |
| Australia | 2 | 18% |
| Ireland | 1 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 45% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 27% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 214 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 18% |
| Researcher | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 9% |
| Other | 17 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 47 | 22% |
| Unknown | 57 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 52 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 23% |
| Unspecified | 14 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 5% |
| Psychology | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 24 | 11% |
| Unknown | 58 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 22 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,646,601
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,525
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,794
of 330,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#83
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 330,558 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.