Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 239

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effectiveness of Primary Care-Based Interventions to Promote Breastfeeding: Systematic Evidence Review and Meta-Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Open access
Guise, J.-M.·2003·The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: We wanted to systematically review whether primary care-based interventions improve initiation and duration of breastfeeding. METHODS: Studies were found by searching MEDLINE (1966-2001), Health-STAR, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Databases, and bibliographies of identified trials and review articles. Studies were included if they originated in the primary care setting and were conducted in a developed country, written in English, and contained a concurrent control group. RESULTS: Thirty randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and 5 systematic reviews of breastfeeding counseling were included. Educational programs had the greatest effect of any single intervention on both initiation (difference 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-0.34) and short-term duration (difference 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.50). Support programs conducted by telephone, in person, or both increased short-term (difference 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.19) and long-term duration (difference 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02-0.16). In contrast, written materials such as pamphlets did not significantly increase breastfeeding. Data were insufficient to determine whether the combination of education with support was more effective than education alone. CONCLUSIONS: Educational programs were the most effective single intervention. One woman would breast-feed for up to 3 months for every 3 to 5 women attending breastfeeding educational programs. Future research and policy should focus on translating these findings into more widespread practice in diverse primary care settings.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1370/afm.56

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 239

Metadata

Authors
Guise, J.-M.
Venue
The Annals of Family Medicine
Published
2003-07-01
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
70-78
ISSN
  • 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-1717
OpenAlex
W2167285187
Cited by
239
References
3
FWCI
8.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Effectiveness of Primary Care-Based Interventions to Promote Breastfeeding: Systematic Evidence Review and Meta-Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1370/afm.56
The paper
Guise, J.-M. (2003). The Effectiveness of Primary Care-Based Interventions to Promote Breastfeeding: Systematic Evidence Review and Meta-Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. The Annals of Family Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.56

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.