卫生专业人员对婴儿断奶的认识、看法和态度:范围审查。

IF 2 Q2 NURSING
SAGE Open Nursing Pub Date : 2024-09-27 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23779608241285417
P Sarreira-de-Oliveira, S Fernandes, R Ramalho, F Loureiro
{"title":"卫生专业人员对婴儿断奶的认识、看法和态度:范围审查。","authors":"P Sarreira-de-Oliveira, S Fernandes, R Ramalho, F Loureiro","doi":"10.1177/23779608241285417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Baby-led weaning (BLW) is a growing method for parents to introduce food to their kids. As advisers who affect the decisions of parents, health practitioners have significant obligations in this regard.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aim to identify existing literature on the knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes of health professionals toward BLW.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. After registering with Open Science Framework, published articles were retrieved from EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, ScienceDirect, Open Grey, and the Portuguese Scientific Open Access Repository. Primary studies with full-text availability in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, and no data publication limitations were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final sample included seven publications conducted in five countries published between 2012 and 2022. Only one study employed a hybrid methodology showing incongruent practices in parents/health professionals on BLW, whereas most studies employed a quantitative approach. Regarding BLW, it is recognized that there is a dearth of evidence, consensus, and advice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite benefits, health professionals hesitate to recommend BLW due to insufficient study and safety concerns, warranting more research. Hence, our scoping review demonstrated that BLW is a scientifically under-researched subject, indicating a significant research gap that must be filled in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":43312,"journal":{"name":"SAGE Open Nursing","volume":"10 ","pages":"23779608241285417"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11437570/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health Professionals' Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitudes Toward Baby-Led Weaning: Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"P Sarreira-de-Oliveira, S Fernandes, R Ramalho, F Loureiro\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23779608241285417\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Baby-led weaning (BLW) is a growing method for parents to introduce food to their kids. As advisers who affect the decisions of parents, health practitioners have significant obligations in this regard.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aim to identify existing literature on the knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes of health professionals toward BLW.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. After registering with Open Science Framework, published articles were retrieved from EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, ScienceDirect, Open Grey, and the Portuguese Scientific Open Access Repository. Primary studies with full-text availability in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, and no data publication limitations were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final sample included seven publications conducted in five countries published between 2012 and 2022. Only one study employed a hybrid methodology showing incongruent practices in parents/health professionals on BLW, whereas most studies employed a quantitative approach. Regarding BLW, it is recognized that there is a dearth of evidence, consensus, and advice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite benefits, health professionals hesitate to recommend BLW due to insufficient study and safety concerns, warranting more research. Hence, our scoping review demonstrated that BLW is a scientifically under-researched subject, indicating a significant research gap that must be filled in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43312,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SAGE Open Nursing\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"23779608241285417\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11437570/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SAGE Open Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608241285417\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SAGE Open Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608241285417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介婴儿断奶法(BLW)是越来越多的父母向孩子介绍食物的方法。作为影响父母决定的顾问,医疗从业人员在这方面负有重要责任:我们的目的是确定现有文献中有关保健专业人员对婴儿断奶的认识、看法和态度:我们根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews)进行了范围界定综述。在开放科学框架注册后,我们从 EBSCOhost、PubMed、SciELO、ScienceDirect、Open Grey 和葡萄牙科学开放存取库检索了已发表的文章。结果显示,最终样本包括 7 篇在葡萄牙语、英语、西班牙语或葡萄牙语国家进行的研究:最终样本包括 2012 年至 2022 年间在 5 个国家发表的 7 篇出版物。只有一项研究采用了混合方法,显示了父母/卫生专业人员在婴儿出生后即开始喂养方面的不一致做法,而大多数研究采用了定量方法。关于婴儿顺产,人们认识到缺乏证据、共识和建议:尽管BLW有诸多益处,但由于研究不足和安全问题,卫生专业人员在推荐BLW时仍犹豫不决,因此需要开展更多研究。因此,我们的范围审查表明,BLW 是一个科学研究不足的主题,这表明未来必须填补巨大的研究空白。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Health Professionals' Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitudes Toward Baby-Led Weaning: Scoping Review.

Introduction: Baby-led weaning (BLW) is a growing method for parents to introduce food to their kids. As advisers who affect the decisions of parents, health practitioners have significant obligations in this regard.

Objective: We aim to identify existing literature on the knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes of health professionals toward BLW.

Methods: We carried out a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. After registering with Open Science Framework, published articles were retrieved from EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, ScienceDirect, Open Grey, and the Portuguese Scientific Open Access Repository. Primary studies with full-text availability in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, and no data publication limitations were included.

Results: The final sample included seven publications conducted in five countries published between 2012 and 2022. Only one study employed a hybrid methodology showing incongruent practices in parents/health professionals on BLW, whereas most studies employed a quantitative approach. Regarding BLW, it is recognized that there is a dearth of evidence, consensus, and advice.

Conclusion: Despite benefits, health professionals hesitate to recommend BLW due to insufficient study and safety concerns, warranting more research. Hence, our scoping review demonstrated that BLW is a scientifically under-researched subject, indicating a significant research gap that must be filled in the future.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
106
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信