Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies.

BACKGROUND: There is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant's diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation. OBJECTIVES: 1. To describe types of breastfeeding support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. 2. To examine the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding support interventions in terms of whether they offered only breastfeeding support or breastfeeding support in combination with a wider maternal and child health intervention ('breastfeeding plus' support).  3. To examine the effectiveness of the following intervention characteristics on breastfeeding support:      a. type of support (e.g. face-to-face, telephone, digital technologies, group or individual support, proactive or reactive);      b. intensity of support (i.e. number of postnatal contacts);      c. person delivering the intervention (e.g. healthcare professional, lay person);     d. to examine whether the impact of support varied between high- and low-and middle-income countries. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes results of searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) (11 May 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care. Support could be provided face-to-face, over the phone or via digital technologies. All studies had to meet the trustworthiness criteria.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods. Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and study trustworthiness.  The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 116 trials of which 103 contribute data to the analyses. In total more than 98,816 mother-infant pairs were included.  Moderate-certainty evidence indicated that 'breastfeeding only' support probably reduced the number of women stopping breastfeeding for all primary outcomes: stopping any breastfeeding at six months (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.89 to 0.97); stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93); stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97); and stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90). Similar findings were reported for the secondary breastfeeding outcomes except for any breastfeeding at two months and 12 months when the evidence was uncertain if 'breastfeeding only' support helped reduce the number of women stopping breastfeeding.  The evidence for 'breastfeeding plus' was less consistent. For primary outcomes there was some evidence that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably reduced the number of women stopping any breastfeeding (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.97, moderate-certainty evidence) or exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.90).  'Breastfeeding plus' interventions may have a beneficial effect on reducing the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95). The evidence suggests that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably results in little to no difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08, moderate-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes, it was uncertain if 'breastfeeding plus' support helped reduce the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding at any time points.  There were no consistent findings emerging from the narrative synthesis of the non-breastfeeding outcomes (maternal satisfaction with care, maternal satisfaction with feeding method, infant morbidity, and maternal mental health), except for a possible reduction of diarrhoea in intervention infants.  We considered the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Blinding of participants and personnel is not feasible in such interventions and as studies utilised self-report breastfeeding data, there is also a risk of bias in outcome assessment.   We conducted meta-regression to explore substantial heterogeneity for the primary outcomes using the following categories: person providing care; mode of delivery; intensity of support; and income status of country.  It is possible that moderate levels (defined as 4-8 visits) of 'breastfeeding only' support may be associated with a more beneficial effect on exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and six months. 'Breastfeeding only' support may also be more effective in reducing women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months compared to women in high-income countries (HICs). However, no other differential effects were found and thus heterogeneity remains largely unexplained. The meta-regression suggested that there were no differential effects regarding person providing support or mode of delivery, however, power was limited.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When 'breastfeeding only' support is offered to women, the duration and in particular, the exclusivity of breastfeeding is likely to be increased. Support may also be more effective in reducing the number of women stopping breastfeeding at three to four months compared to later time points.  For 'breastfeeding plus' interventions the evidence is less certain. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Support can also be offered face-to-face, via telephone or digital technologies, or a combination and may be more effective when delivered on a schedule of four to eight visits. Further work is needed to identify components of the effective interventions and to deliver interventions on a larger scale.

Factors that influence women's engagement with breastfeeding support: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

Breastfeeding is an integral part of early childhood interventions as it can prevent serious childhood and maternal illnesses. For breastfeeding support programmes to be effective, a better understanding of contextual factors that influence women's engagement and satisfaction with these programmes is needed. The aim of this synthesis is to suggest strategies to increase the level of satisfaction with support programmes and to better match the expectations and needs of women. We systematically searched for studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis and that focused on women's experiences and perceptions regarding breastfeeding support programmes. We applied a maximum variation purposive sampling strategy and used thematic analysis. We assessed the methodological quality of the studies using a modified version of the CASP tool and assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We included 51 studies of which we sampled 22 for in-depth analysis. Our sampled studies described the experiences of women with formal breastfeeding support by health care professionals in a hospital setting and informal support as for instance from community support groups. Our findings illustrate that the current models of breastfeeding support are dependent on a variety of contextual factors encouraging and supporting women to initiate and continue breastfeeding. They further highlight the relevance of providing different forms of support based on socio-cultural norms and personal backgrounds of women, especially if the support is one-on-one. Feeding decisions of women are situated within a woman's personal situation and may require diverse forms of support.

Relationships between Women's and Men's Modifiable Preconception Risks and Health Behaviors and Maternal and Offspring Health Outcomes: An Umbrella Review.

Parental health before conception effects maternal and offspring health outcomes. Preconception care provides healthcare to prospective parents addressing modifiable preconception risks and health behaviors. This umbrella review aimed to consolidate evidence on women's and men's modifiable preconception risks or health behaviors associated with maternal and offspring health outcomes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from March 4, 2010, to March 4, 2020. Eligible studies were systematic reviews or meta-analyses of observational studies examining associations between modifiable preconception risks or health behaviors and maternal and offspring health outcomes. Screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment (AMSTAR 2) occurred independently by two reviewers. Degree of overlap was examined. Findings were summarized for evidence synthesis. Twenty-seven systematic reviews were included. Modifiable preconception risks and health behaviors were identified across categories: body composition (e.g., overweight, obesity), lifestyle behaviors (e.g., caffeine, smoking), nutrition (e.g., micronutrients), environmental exposures (e.g., radiation), and birth spacing (e.g., short interpregnancy intervals). Outcomes associated with exposures affected embryo (e.g., embryonic growth), maternal (e.g., gestational diabetes mellitus), fetal/neonate (e.g., preterm birth), and child (e.g., neurocognitive disorders) health. For real-world practice and policy relevance, evidence-based indicators for preconception care should include body composition, lifestyle, nutrition, environmental, and birth spacing.

An Evidence Synthesis of Covert Online Strategies Regarding Intimate Partner Violence.

This systematic review synthesizes evidence of how people use the internet to deploy covert strategies around escaping from, or perpetrating, intimate partner violence (IPV). Online tools and services can facilitate individuals leaving abusive relationships, yet they can also act as a barrier to departure. They may also enable abusive behaviors. A comprehensive literature search of published and unpublished studies in electronic databases was conducted. Two researchers independently screened abstracts and full texts for study eligibility and evaluated the quality of included studies. The systematic review includes 22 studies (9 qualitative and 11 cross-sectional studies, a randomized control trial [RCT] and a nonrandomized study [NRS]) published between 2004 and 2017. Four covert behaviors linked to covert online strategies around IPV were identified: presence online, granular control, use of digital support tools and services, and stalking and surveillance. The same technology that provides individuals with easy access to information and supportive services related to IPV, such as digital devices, tools, and services, also enables perpetrators to monitor or harass their partners. This review takes a rigorous interdisciplinary approach to synthesizing knowledge on the covert strategies adopted by people in relation to IPV. It has particular relevance to practitioners who support survivors in increasing awareness of the role of digital technologies in IPV, to law enforcement agencies in identifying new forms of evidence of abuse, and in enabling designers of online/social media applications to take the needs and vulnerabilities of IPV survivors into account.

Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

The Covid-19 pandemic has led to a substantial increase in remotely provided maternity care services, including breastfeeding support. It is, therefore, important to understand whether breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. To determine if breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Twenty-nine studies were included in the review and 26 contributed data to the meta-analysis. Remotely provided breastfeeding support significantly reduced the risk of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months by 25% (risk ratio [RR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63, 0.90). There was no significant difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.74, 1.64), 3 months (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.11), or 6 months (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.81, 1.03) or the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.07) or 6 months (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.0). There was substantial heterogeneity of interventions in terms of mode of delivery, intensity, and providers. This demonstrates that remote interventions can be effective for improving exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months but the certainty of the evidence is low. Improvements in exclusive breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks and 6 months were only found when studies at high risk of bias were excluded. They are also less likely to be effective for improving any breastfeeding. Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education could be provided when it is not possible to provide face-to-face care.

Cue-based versus scheduled feeding for preterm infants transitioning from tube to oral feeding: the Cubs mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence of the effect of cue-based feeding compared with scheduled feeding on important outcomes for preterm infants. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were as follows: (1) to describe the characteristics, components, theoretical basis and outcomes of approaches to feeding preterm infants transitioning from tube to oral feeding; (2) to identify operational policies, barriers and facilitators, and staff and parents' educational needs in neonatal units implementing cue-based feeding; (3) to co-produce an intervention for feeding preterm infants in response to feeding cues; (4) to appraise the willingness of parents and staff to implement and sustain the intervention; (5) to assess associated costs of implementing cue-based feeding; (6) to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a future trial; (7) to scope existing data-recording systems and potential outcome measures; and (8) to determine stakeholders' views of whether or not a randomised controlled trial of this approach is feasible. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods intervention development and feasibility study comprising (1) a systematic review, case studies, qualitative research and stakeholder consensus; (2) the co-production of the intervention; (3) a mixed-methods feasibility study; and (4) an assessment of stakeholder preferences for a future evaluation. SETTING: Three neonatal units in the UK (two level 3 units and one level 2 unit). PARTICIPANTS: Developmentally normal, clinically stable preterm infants receiving enteral feeds (n = 50), parents (n = 15 pre intervention development; n = 14 in the feasibility study) and health-care practitioners (n = 54 pre intervention development; n = 16 in the feasibility study). INTERVENTION: An evidence-informed multicomponent intervention comprising training, a feeding protocol, feeding assessment tools, supplementary training materials [including posters, a film and a narrated PowerPoint (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) presentation] and the 'Our Feeding Journey' document. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were recruitment and screening rates, infant weight gain, duration of the intervention, feeding outcomes, implementation outcomes (contextual facilitators and barriers, acceptability, adoption, appropriateness and fidelity) and stakeholder preferences for a future evaluation. RESULTS: The systematic review of 25 studies concluded that evidence in favour of cue-based feeding should be treated cautiously. The case studies and qualitative research highlighted contextual barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of cue-based feeding. The telephone survey found that many neonatal units are considering implementing cue-based feeding. We recruited 37% of eligible infants, and there was good retention in the study until discharge but a high loss to follow-up at 2 weeks post discharge. The mean number of days from intervention to transition to full oral feeding was 10.8, and the mean daily change in weight gain was 25 g. The intervention was acceptable to parents and staff, although there was dissatisfaction with the study documentation. Intervention training did not reach all staff. A cluster-randomised design with a composite outcome was suggested by stakeholders for a future study. LIMITATIONS: The intervention was available only in English. Intervention training did not reach all staff. There was low recruitment to qualitative interviews and observations. Only a small number of medical staff engaged in either the training or the interviews. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to implement a cue-based feeding intervention with improved training and documentation. Further work is needed to assess the feasibility of a future trial, noting evidence of existing lack of equipoise. FUTURE WORK: The next steps are to digitalise the intervention and conduct a survey of all neonatal units in the UK. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018097317 and ISRCTN13414304. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Preterm babies who are ready to progress from tube feeding to oral feeding are usually fed according to a fixed schedule. Scheduled feeding protocols set a minimum corrected gestational age at which oral feeding may commence, and specify the rate of change from tube to oral feeding. Scheduled feeding also sets the volume and timing of each feed. A few small studies show that feeding babies according to their cues might have benefits for them and their parents; for example, babies may be discharged from hospital sooner. Cue-based feeding may help parents to understand the needs of their baby and be more involved in their care. Examples of hunger cues are mouthing movements, bringing hands to mouth and sucking. Examples of stop cues are falling asleep and stopping sucking. We developed a cue-based feeding intervention and tested it in three neonatal units to see if a large trial could be done and if parents and staff liked the intervention. We reviewed previous research, visited three hospitals that use cue-based feeding and interviewed parents and staff about their experiences of feeding preterm babies. We developed the intervention with parents and staff. The intervention included a feeding protocol, training for parents and staff, and a feeding record. Parents and staff liked most parts of the intervention. The training did not reach all staff, and staff and parents found it time-consuming to record every feed. Many parents and staff thought that cue-based feeding was better for babies, and parents thought that neonatal units should change to cue-based feeding. We discussed our findings with parents, staff and research experts. Based on their ideas, we recommend that the intervention is developed into an app (application) and that all neonatal units in the UK are surveyed to find out if they use cue-based feeding and if they would agree to be part of a large trial.

Barriers and facilitators to recruiting and retaining men on pre-registration nursing programmes in Western countries: A systemised rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The recruitment of men to pre-registration nursing programmes in many Western countries has remained static at approximately 10% per year. AIM: To identify the experiences and attitudes of men on pre-registration nursing programmes in Western countries and the barriers and enablers to their recruitment and retention. DESIGN: Systematized rapid review. METHODS: Searches were undertaken in Medline (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and PsychINFO (EBSCO) databases. Studies in English were included if they were from Western countries, were published since 2000 and related to men's experiences of, or attitudes to, applying for or studying pre-registration nursing. Included papers were quality appraised and findings were thematically analysed and presented in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Records were de-duplicated and 2063 records were screened and 44 articles assessed for eligibility of which 23 articles relating to 22 empirical studies were included in the review. Findings were categorised into the following themes: recruitment experiences/reasons for studying nursing; gender experiences; barriers, difficulties and challenges with programme; and factors affecting retention. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that many men who come into nursing have a family member or acquaintance who is a nurse or that they have had contact with a male nurse as a patient or carer. Motivating factors such as financial security, career mobility and the opportunity to have a job in a caring profession were reported. Improved career advice at school is needed and shortened graduate programmes could be attractive. On programme, some clinical areas were easier for male students, while in others, treatment refusal could cause difficulties. Being in a minority and gender stereotyping can affect experiences. Ensuring equitable treatment, providing additional support and placements in clinical areas with more men could minimise these challenges.

An evidence synthesis of strategies, enablers and barriers for keeping secrets online regarding the procurement and supply of illicit drugs.

This systematic review attempts to understand how people keep secrets online, and in particular how people use the internet when engaging in covert behaviours and activities regarding the procurement and supply of illicit drugs. With the Internet and social media being part of everyday life for most people in western and non-western countries, there are ever-growing opportunities for individuals to engage in covert behaviours and activities online that may be considered illegal or unethical. A search strategy using Medical Subject Headings terms and relevant key words was developed. A comprehensive literature search of published and unpublished studies in electronic databases was conducted. Additional studies were identified from reference lists of previous studies and (systematic) reviews that had similar objectives as this search, and were included if they fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Two researchers independently screened abstracts and full-texts for study eligibility and evaluated the quality of included studies. Disagreements were resolved by a consensus procedure. The systematic review includes 33 qualitative studies and one cross-sectional study, published between 2006 and 2018. Five covert behaviours were identified: the use of communication channels; anonymity; visibility reduction; limited posts in public; following forum rules and recommendations. The same technologies that provide individuals with easy access to information, such as social networking sites and forums, digital devices, digital tools and services, also increase the prevalence of inaccurate information, loss of privacy, identity theft and disinhibited communication. This review takes a rigorous interdisciplinary approach to synthesising knowledge on the strategies adopted by people in keeping secrets online. Whilst the focus is on the procurement and supply of illicit drugs, this knowledge is transferrable to a range of contexts where people keep secrets online. It has particular significance for those who design online/social media applications, and for law enforcement and security agencies.

Counselling interventions to enable women to initiate and continue breastfeeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Many infants worldwide are not breastfeeding according to WHO recommendations and this impacts on the health of women and children. Increasing breastfeeding is identified as a priority area supported by current policy targets. However, interventions are complex and multi-component and it is unclear which elements of interventions are most effective to increase breastfeeding in which settings. Breastfeeding counselling is often part of complex interventions but evidence is lacking on the specific effect of counselling interventions on breastfeeding practices. The aim of this systematic review is to examine evidence on effectiveness of breastfeeding counselling to inform global guidelines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted of six electronic databases in January 2018. Randomised controlled trials comparing breastfeeding counselling with no breastfeeding counselling or different formulations of counselling were included if they measured breastfeeding practices between birth and 24 months after birth. Results: From the 5180 records identified in searches and a further 11 records found by hand searching, 63 studies were included. Of these, 48 were individually-randomised trials and 15 were cluster-randomised trials. A total of 69 relevant comparisons were reported involving 33,073 women. There was a significant effect of counselling interventions on any breastfeeding at 4 to 6 weeks (Relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.77, 0.94) and 6 months (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87, 0.94). Greater effects were found on exclusive breastfeeding at 4 to 6 weeks (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72, 0.87) and 6 months (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78, 0.91). Counselling delivered at least four times postnatally is more effective than counselling delivered antenatally only and/or fewer than four times. Evidence was mostly of low quality due to high or unclear risk of bias of the included trials and high heterogeneity. Conclusions: Breastfeeding counselling is an effective public health intervention to increase rates of any and exclusive breastfeeding. Breastfeeding counselling should be provided face-to-face, and in addition, may be provided by telephone, both antenatally and postnatally, to all pregnant women and mothers with young children. To inform scale-up globally there is a need to further understand the elements of breastfeeding interventions such as counselling and their effectiveness in different contexts and circumstances. Study registration: This systematic review was registered in Prospero (CRD42018086494).

Pre-service and in-service education and training for maternal and newborn care providers in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence review and gap analysis.

BACKGROUND: Good quality midwifery care has the potential to reduce both maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity in high, low, and lower-middle income countries (LMIC) and needs to be underpinned by effective education. There is considerable variation in the quality of midwifery education provided globally. OBJECTIVE: To determine what are the most efficient and effective ways for LMICs to conduct pre-service and in-service education and training in order to adequately equip care providers to provide quality maternal and newborn care. DESIGN: Rapid Systematic Evidence Review METHODS: A systematic search of the following databases was conducted: Medline, CINAHL, LILACs, PsycInfo, ERIC, and MIDIRs. Studies that evaluated the effects of pre-service and in-service education that were specifically designed to train, educate or upskill care providers in order to provide quality maternal and newborn care were included. Data was extracted and presented narratively. FINDINGS: Nineteen studies were included in the review. Of these seven were evaluations of pre-service education programmes and 12 were evaluations of in-service education programmes. Whilst studies demonstrated positive effects on knowledge and skills, there was a lack of information on whether this translated into behaviour change and positive effects for women and babies. Moreover, the level of the evidence was low and studies often lacked an educational framework and theoretical basis. Mapping the skills taught in each of the programmes to the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care framework (Renfrew et al., 2014) identified that interventions focused on very specific or individual clinical skills and not on the broader scope of midwifery. KEY CONCLUSIONS: There is a very limited quantity and quality of peer reviewed published studies of the effectiveness of pre service and in service midwifery education in LMICs; this is at odds with the importance of the topic to survival, health and well-being. There is a preponderance of studies which focus on training for specific emergencies during labour and birth. None of the in-service programmes considered the education of midwives to international standards with the full scope of competencies needed. There is an urgent need for the development of theoretically informed pre-service and in-service midwifery education programmes, and well-conducted evaluations of such programmes. Upscaling quality midwifery care for all women and newborn infants is of critical importance to accelerate progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3. Quality midwifery education is an essential pre-requisite for quality care. To deliver SDG 3, the startling underinvestment in midwifery education identified in this review must be reversed.

What happens for informal caregivers during transition to increased levels of care for the person with dementia? A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a globally prevalent disease that requires ongoing and increasing levels of care, often provided in the first instance by informal caregivers. Supporting transitions in informal caregiving in dementia is a pertinent issue for caregivers, care providers and governments. There is no existing systematic review that seeks to identify and map the body of literature regarding the review question: 'What happens for informal caregivers during transition to increased levels of care for the person with dementia?' METHODS/DESIGN: ASSIA, CINAHL+, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCIE, Social Service Abstracts and Web of Science will be systematically searched. Specialist dementia research libraries will be contacted. Reviews identified as relevant during the search process, their reference lists, and reference lists of accepted papers will be hand-searched. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies that seek to represent the experiences of, or examine the impact upon, informal caregivers during transition to increased formal care for the person with dementia will be eligible for inclusion. Synthesis will be segregated into qualitative and quantitative papers. Findings will be summarised, and the review will be prepared for publication. DISCUSSION: The review will seek to identify potentially vulnerable groups in need of support and as such, inform the practice of those offering support. It will also inform future research by highlighting areas in which current literature is insubstantial. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017067248.

Gypsy, Roma and Traveller access to and engagement with health services: a systematic review.

Background: Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people represent the most disadvantaged minority groups in Europe, having the poorest health outcomes. This systematic review addressed the question of how Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people access healthcare and what are the best ways to enhance their engagement with health services. Methods: Searches were conducted in 21 electronic databases complemented by a focussed Google search. Studies were included if they had sufficient focus on Gypsy, Roma or Traveller populations; reported data pertinent to healthcare service use or engagement and were published in English from 2000 to 2015. Study findings were analyzed thematically and a narrative synthesis reported. Results: Ninety-nine studies from 32 countries were included, covering a range of health services. Nearly one-half of the presented findings related to primary healthcare services. Reported barriers to health service usage related to organisation of health systems, discrimination, culture and language, health literacy, service-user attributes and economic barriers. Promising engagement strategies included specialist roles, outreach services, dedicated services, raising health awareness, handheld records, training for staff and collaborative working. Conclusion: This review provides evidence that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller populations across Europe struggle to exercise their right to healthcare on account of multiple barriers; and related to other determinants of disadvantage such as low literacy levels and experiences of discrimination. Some promising strategies to overcome barriers were reported but the evidence is weak; therefore, rigorous evaluations of interventions to improve access to and engagement with health services for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people are needed.

Promotion of physical activity interventions for community dwelling older adults: A systematic review of reviews.

OBJECTIVES: While there is strong evidence that regular participation in physical activity (PA) brings numerous health benefits to older adults, and interventions to effectively promote PA are being developed and tested, the characteristics and components of the most effective interventions remain unclear. This systematically conducted review of systematic reviews evaluated the effects and characteristics of PA promotion interventions aimed at community dwelling people over 50 years old. METHODS: Major databases were searched for reviews from January 1990 to May 2015. TIDieR guidelines aided data extraction and the ROBIS tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were objective and self-reported levels of PA. Indicators of psychological wellbeing and participation rates were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1284 records identified, 19 reviews met inclusion criteria and eight included meta-analyses. Interventions typically incorporated behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and were delivered as face-to-face, remote, group, individual or as combined interventions. Despite their heterogeneity, interventions often resulted in sustained improvements in PA over the study period, typically at 12 months, and led to improvements in general wellbeing. However, ways to ensure effective maintenance beyond one year are unclear. Certain intervention components were more clearly associated with positive effects (e.g. tailoring promotion strategy with combination of cognitive and behavioural elements, low to moderate intensity activity recommended). We found no evidence that certain other intervention characteristics were superior in achieving positive outcomes (e.g. mode of delivery, setting, professional background of the intervention provider, type of PA recommended). CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that interventions to promote PA among older adults are generally effective but there is uncertainty around the most beneficial intervention components. There are indications that purely cognitive strategies and BCTs might be less suitable for older adults than motivators more meaningful to them, including social and environmental support, and enjoyment coming from being physically active. A whole system-oriented approach is required that is tailored to meet the needs of older adults and aligned with social, individual and environmental factors.

Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies.

BACKGROUND: There is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant's diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation. OBJECTIVES: To describe forms of breastfeeding support which have been evaluated in controlled studies, the timing of the interventions and the settings in which they have been used.To examine the effectiveness of different modes of offering similar supportive interventions (for example, whether the support offered was proactive or reactive, face-to-face or over the telephone), and whether interventions containing both antenatal and postnatal elements were more effective than those taking place in the postnatal period alone.To examine the effectiveness of different care providers and (where information was available) training.To explore the interaction between background breastfeeding rates and effectiveness of support. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (29 February 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 100 trials involving more than 83,246 mother-infant pairs of which 73 studies contribute data (58 individually-randomised trials and 15 cluster-randomised trials). We considered that the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Of the 31 new studies included in this update, 21 provided data for one or more of the primary outcomes. The total number of mother-infant pairs in the 73 studies that contributed data to this review is 74,656 (this total was 56,451 in the previous version of this review). The 73 studies were conducted in 29 countries. Results of the analyses continue to confirm that all forms of extra support analyzed together showed a decrease in cessation of 'any breastfeeding', which includes partial and exclusive breastfeeding (average risk ratio (RR) for stopping any breastfeeding before six months 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 51 studies) and for stopping breastfeeding before four to six weeks (average RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 33 studies). All forms of extra support together also showed a decrease in cessation of exclusive breastfeeding at six months (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence, 46 studies) and at four to six weeks (average RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89; moderate quality, 32 studies). We downgraded evidence to moderate-quality due to very high heterogeneity.We investigated substantial heterogeneity for all four outcomes with subgroup analyses for the following covariates: who delivered care, type of support, timing of support, background breastfeeding rate and number of postnatal contacts. Covariates were not able to explain heterogeneity in general. Though the interaction tests were significant for some analyses, we advise caution in the interpretation of results for subgroups due to the heterogeneity. Extra support by both lay and professionals had a positive impact on breastfeeding outcomes. Several factors may have also improved results for women practising exclusive breastfeeding, such as interventions delivered with a face-to-face component, high background initiation rates of breastfeeding, lay support, and a specific schedule of four to eight contacts. However, because within-group heterogeneity remained high for all of these analyses, we advise caution when making specific conclusions based on subgroup results. We noted no evidence for subgroup differences for the any breastfeeding outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When breastfeeding support is offered to women, the duration and exclusivity of breastfeeding is increased. Characteristics of effective support include: that it is offered as standard by trained personnel during antenatal or postnatal care, that it includes ongoing scheduled visits so that women can predict when support will be available, and that it is tailored to the setting and the needs of the population group. Support is likely to be more effective in settings with high initiation rates. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Strategies that rely mainly on face-to-face support are more likely to succeed with women practising exclusive breastfeeding.

Interventions for promoting the initiation of breastfeeding.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widely documented risks of not breastfeeding, initiation rates remain relatively low in many high-income countries, particularly among women in lower-income groups. In low- and middle-income countries, many women do not follow World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations to initiate breastfeeding within the first hour after birth. This is an update of a Cochrane Review, first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe health promotion activities intended to increase the initiation rate of breastfeeding.To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding promotion activities, in terms of changing the number of women who initiate breastfeeding.To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding promotion activities, in terms of changing the number of women who initiate breastfeeding early (within one hour after birth). SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (29 February 2016) and scanned reference lists of all articles obtained. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with or without blinding, of any breastfeeding promotion intervention in any population group, except women and infants with a specific health problem. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial reports for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trial quality. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and a third review author was involved when necessary. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-eight trials involving 107,362 women in seven countries are included in this updated review. Five studies involving 3,124 women did not contribute outcome data and we excluded them from the analyses. The methodological quality of the included trials was mixed, with significant numbers of studies at high or unclear risk of bias due to: inadequate allocation concealment (N = 20); lack of blinding of outcome assessment (N = 20); incomplete outcome data (N = 19); selective reporting (N = 22) and bias from other potential sources (N = 17). Healthcare professional-led breastfeeding education and support versus standard care The studies pooled here compare professional health workers delivering breastfeeding education and support during the prenatal and postpartum periods with standard care. Interventions included promotion campaigns and counselling, and all took place in a formal setting. There was evidence from five trials involving 564 women for improved rates ofbreastfeeding initiation among women who received healthcare professional-led breastfeeding education and support (average risk ratio (RR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.92; Tau² = 0.07, I² = 62%, low-quality evidence) compared to those women who received standard care. We downgraded evidence due to design limitations and heterogeneity. The outcome of early initiation of breastfeeding was not reported in the studies under this comparison. Non-healthcare professional-led breastfeeding education and support versus standard care There was evidence from eight trials of 5712 women for improved rates of breastfeeding initiation among women who received interventions from non-healthcare professional counsellors and support groups (average RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.40; Tau² = 0.02, I² = 86%, low-quality evidence) compared to women who received standard care. In three trials of 76,373 women, there was no clear difference between groups in terms of the number of women practicing early initiation of breastfeeding (average RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.95; Tau² = 0.18, I² = 78%, very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for a combination of design limitations, heterogeneity and imprecision (wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect). Other comparisonsOther comparisons in this review also looked at the rates of initiation of breastfeeding and there were no clear differences between groups for the following comparisons of combined healthcare professional-led education with peer support or community educator versus standard care (2 studies, 1371 women) or attention control (1 study, 237 women), breastfeeding education using multimedia (a self-help manual or a video) versus routine care (2 studies, 497 women); early mother-infant contact versus standard care (2 studies, 309 women); and community-based breastfeeding groups versus no breastfeeding groups (1 study, 18,603 women). None of these comparisons reported data on early initiation of breastfeeding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found low-quality evidence that healthcare professional-led breastfeeding education and non-healthcare professional-led counselling and peer support interventions can result in some improvements in the number of women beginning to breastfeed. The majority of the trials were conducted in the USA, among women on low incomes and who varied in ethnicity and feeding intention, thus limiting the generalisability of these results to other settings.Future studies would ideally be conducted in a range of low- and high-income settings, with data on breastfeeding rates over various timeframes, and explore the effectiveness of interventions that are initiated prior to conception or during pregnancy. These might include well-described interventions, including health education, early and continuing mother-infant contact, and initiatives to help mothers overcome societal barriers to breastfeeding, all with clearly defined outcome measures.

Interventions for sustained healthcare professional behaviour change: a protocol for an overview of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Failure to successfully implement and sustain change over the long term continues to be a major problem in health and social care. Translating evidence into routine clinical practice is notoriously complex, and it is recognised that to implement new evidence-based interventions and sustain them over time, professional behaviour needs to change accordingly. A number of theories and frameworks have been developed to support behaviour change among health and social care professionals, and models of sustainability are emerging, but few have translated into valid and reliable interventions. The long-term success of healthcare professional behavioural change interventions is variable, and the characteristics of successful interventions unclear. Previous reviews have synthesised the evidence for behaviour change, but none have focused on sustainability. In addition, multiple overlapping reviews have reported inconsistent results, which do not aid translation of evidence into practice. Overviews of reviews can provide accessible succinct summaries of evidence and address barriers to evidence-based practice. We aim to compile an overview of reviews, identifying, appraising and synthesising evidence relating to sustained social and healthcare professional behaviour change. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review of Cochrane reviews (an Overview). We plan to systematically search the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We will include all systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials comparing a healthcare professional targeted behaviour change intervention to a standard care or no intervention control group. Two reviewers will independently assess the eligibility of the reviews and the methodological quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool. The quality of evidence within each comparison in each review will be judged based on the GRADE criteria. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion. Effects of interventions will be systematically tabulated and the quality of evidence used to determine implications for clinical practice and make recommendations for future research. DISCUSSION: This overview will bring together the best available evidence relating to the sustainability of health professional behaviour change, thus supporting policy makers with decision-making in this field.

Education and training of healthcare staff in the knowledge, attitudes and skills needed to work effectively with breastfeeding women: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence suggests that women need effective support to breastfeed, but many healthcare staff lack the necessary knowledge, attitudes and skills. There is therefore a need for breastfeeding education and training for healthcare staff. The primary aim of this review is to determine whether education and training programs for healthcare staff have an effect on their knowledge and attitudes about supporting breastfeeding women. The secondary aim of this review was to identify whether any differences in type of training or discipline of staff mattered. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted using the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's trial register. Randomised controlled trials comparing breastfeeding education and training for healthcare staff with no or usual training and education were included if they measured the impact on staff knowledge, attitudes or compliance with the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI). RESULTS: From the 1192 reports identified, four distinct studies were included. Three studies were two-arm cluster-randomised trials and one was a two-arm individual randomised trial. Of these, three contributed quantitative data from a total of 250 participants. Due to heterogeneity of outcome measures meta-analysis was not possible. Knowledge was included as an outcome in two studies and demonstrated small but significant positive effects. Attitudes towards breastfeeding was included as an outcome in two studies, however, results were inconsistent both in terms of how they were measured and the intervention effects. One study reported a small but significant positive effect on BFHI compliance. Study quality was generally deemed low with the majority of domains being judged as high or unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified a lack of good evidence on breastfeeding education and training for healthcare staff. There is therefore a critical need for research to address breastfeeding education and training needs of multidisciplinary healthcare staff in different contexts through large, well-conducted RCTs.