Maternal satisfaction with breastfeeding: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Ana Paula de Souza Martins Lemos, Wellington Francisco Rodrigues, Carlo José Freire de Oliveira and 3 others
PMID 41538682WHAT IT FOUND
In 12 studies, 64.83% of postpartum women reported satisfaction with breastfeeding.
Satisfaction was lower with complications, unmet expectations, or exclusive breastfeeding for less than one month.
Key findings
01The pooled prevalence of maternal satisfaction with breastfeeding was 64.83% (CI = 55.32-74.34%), with I² = 98%.
02Favorable breastfeeding conditions were associated with a mean difference of 24.27 percentage points in satisfaction prevalence compared with unfavorable conditions (CI = 6.39-42.15; p = 0.0078), but heterogeneity was very high (I² = 99%).
03Satisfaction was lower when exclusive breastfeeding lasted less than one month (estimate = -0.64; CI = -1.14 to -0.12), when expectations or intentions were unmet (estimate = -0.52; CI = -1.02 to -0.01), or when complications occurred (estimate = -0.56; CI = -1.00 to -0.12).
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 pooled prevalence estimate had very high heterogeneity (I² = 98%), so the average may not represent any single group of mothers. The difference between favorable and unfavorable conditions also had very high heterogeneity (I² = 99%), so the 24.27 percentage point estimate is unstable. Maternal satisfaction was measured with different instruments and scales, including the Maternal Breastfeeding Evaluation Scale in 8 studies, Likert responses in 3 studies, and yes/no in 1 study. This makes direct comparison difficult. Most included studies were observational cohorts or cross-sectional studies, so they show associations, not proof that support or favorable conditions cause higher satisfaction. Only 12 studies and 5,182 dyads were included, and the topic is recent, so the evidence base is still limited.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the pooled 64.83% prevalence or the 24.27 percentage point difference as a stable target for your unit. The studies used different satisfaction scales and had very high heterogeneity (I² = 98% and I² = 99%), so the pooled numbers may not apply to your patients.