Effect of family integrated care on breastfeeding of preterm infants: A scoping review.
Lijing Ding, Yanli Chen, Wenyan Zhang and 4 others
PMID 37306324WHAT IT FOUND
Family integrated care in the NICU showed mixed effects on breastfeeding.
Seven of eleven studies found increased rates or duration, while four found no significant difference. The intervention involves parents in daily care and medical rounds, but evidence quality varies.
Key findings
01Seven of the eleven included studies reported statistically significant improvements in breastfeeding rates or duration with family integrated care.
02Four studies reported neutral results with no statistically significant difference between family integrated care and standard care.
03Key components of the intervention include parent education, participation in daily care, involvement in medical rounds, and environmental support.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review did not assess the quality of the included studies, which included randomized trials, observational studies, and pre-post designs. Only English and Chinese studies were included, potentially missing evidence from other languages. The studies came from different countries and clinical settings, leading to variations in sample characteristics and intervention details. Four of the eleven studies found no significant benefit, indicating the effect on breastfeeding is not consistent.
Declared interests
The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the 'Reservoir' Talent Development Program of Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume family integrated care guarantees improved breastfeeding outcomes. Four of the eleven studies found no significant difference compared to standard care, and the review did not assess the quality of the evidence.