1. STORRE
  2. Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport
  3. Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Letters (Published in a Journal)
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/25446
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHoddinott, Paten_UK
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-31T23:32:20Z-
dc.date.available2017-05-31T23:32:20Z-
dc.date.issued2016-01en_UK
dc.identifier.othere19en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/25446-
dc.description.abstractFirst paragraph: In the cluster randomised controlled trial by Marcel Yotebieng and colleagues (August, 2015)1the addition of Step 10 of the UNICEF Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI)—that is, the provision of additional support for breastfeeding—did not enhance the effects of steps 1–9, and may even have lessened them. Consistent findings were reported for a trial of Step 10 in Scotland between 2005 and 2007.2In this large cluster-randomised trial, the BIG (Breastfeeding in Groups) trial, 14 primary care organisations were asked either to set up new breastfeeding support groups to cover their geographical area, or to leave their existing group provision for pregnant and postnatal women unchanged. More than 18 000 babies were followed up and there was no significant difference between the two groups in change from baseline in rates of exclusive, or any, breastfeeding 8 weeks after birth.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherElsevieren_UK
dc.relationHoddinott P (2016) Step 10: the breastfeeding support paradox (Letter). Lancet Global Health, 4 (1), Art. No.: e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X%2815%2900220-Xen_UK
dc.rights© 2016 Hoddinott. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY-NC-ND. Published by Elsevier Ltd.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_UK
dc.titleStep 10: the breastfeeding support paradoxen_UK
dc.typeLetteren_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00220-Xen_UK
dc.identifier.pmid26718799en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleLancet Global Healthen_UK
dc.citation.issn2214-109Xen_UK
dc.citation.volume4en_UK
dc.citation.issue1en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.description.notesOutput Type: Letteren_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationHealth Sciences Research - Stirling - LEGACYen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000367008300010en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84951747110en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid581727en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-4372-9681en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-01-31en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2017-05-31en_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorHoddinott, Pat|0000-0002-4372-9681en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2017-05-31en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/|2017-05-31|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameHoddinott_Letter_2016.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Letters (Published in a Journal)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Hoddinott_Letter_2016.pdfFulltext - Published Version32.23 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright

View License
Show simple item record


A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.