Systematic ReviewResearchPatient Education

Involving fathers and grandparents in breastfeeding support nearly tripled exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months

Nursing Open (PubMed)Jul 1, 2026

AI-summarized from the linked source. Educational brief, not medical advice.

Brief summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies found that family-centred breastfeeding interventions, which actively involve fathers, grandparents, and other key family members, nearly tripled exclusive breastfeeding rates at 6 months postpartum compared with routine care.

What NurseJet pulled from the source

Following the Cochrane Handbook and using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, this review pooled 19 studies of breastfeeding interventions that engaged family members. Family-based interventions significantly improved exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months postpartum compared with routine care (odds ratio 2.93; 95% CI 1.90 to 4.50; p < 0.001). Interventions grounded in a theoretical framework outperformed non-theoretical ones for exclusive breastfeeding within 2 months (odds ratio 5.50; 95% CI 2.30 to 13.19; p < 0.001), multi-component approaches beat single-method ones (odds ratio 2.70; 95% CI 2.04 to 3.57; p < 0.001), and programmes spanning both prenatal and postnatal periods achieved higher rates at 4 to 6 months than single-phase efforts (odds ratio 4.84; 95% CI 2.50 to 9.40; p < 0.001).

Why this matters for nurses

Exclusive breastfeeding through the early months carries well-documented benefits, yet rates often fall short, and support has traditionally centered on the mother alone. This review may matter for nurses because it points to the wider family, including fathers and grandparents, as an underused lever for helping mothers sustain exclusive breastfeeding.

Bedside takeaway

Worth knowing that a meta-analysis of 19 studies found involving fathers, grandparents, and other family members in breastfeeding support nearly tripled exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months compared with routine care.

Explain this for my unit

Key takeaways

Across 19 studies, family-centred breastfeeding interventions nearly tripled exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months versus routine care (odds ratio 2.93; 95% CI 1.90 to 4.50; p < 0.001).
Theory-based interventions outperformed non-theoretical ones for exclusive breastfeeding within 2 months (odds ratio 5.50; 95% CI 2.30 to 13.19).
Multi-component programmes were more effective than single-method approaches (odds ratio 2.70; 95% CI 2.04 to 3.57).
Interventions covering both prenatal and postnatal periods achieved higher 4 to 6 month rates than single-phase efforts (odds ratio 4.84; 95% CI 2.50 to 9.40).

Practice implications

For labor and delivery, postpartum, and lactation nurses, the findings support inviting fathers, grandparents, and other key family members into breastfeeding education rather than teaching the mother in isolation. Interventions that use a theoretical framework, combine multiple methods, and begin prenatally while continuing after birth appeared most effective in this analysis.

Limitations & cautions

As a meta-analysis of 19 heterogeneous studies, the results reflect the pooled quality and design of the included trials, which were assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool but varied in setting and intervention. The review was not registered, and the specific components of an ideal family-centred programme still need to be defined and tested prospectively.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations

Exact source links

Open source

Public citations are filtered to exact credible source pages. Homepage-only or invalid links stay in admin review and are not shown here.

Nursing Open (PubMed)

Nursing Open (PubMed). Family-Centred Breastfeeding Interventions to Improve Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Open original source

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42400223/

Professional education only

This summary does not replace clinical judgment, facility policy, provider orders, or official guidelines. Verify practice changes against the original source and local protocol.

Related briefs

More updates for this clinical area

Back to Discover

BMJ Quality & Safety (PubMed)Mar 13, 2026Research Article

In a multicentre randomised controlled simulation trial with 82 nurses, independent double-checking detected more medication administration errors than single-checking overall, but the benefit was limited to experienced nurses, with no significant improvement among nurses with under five years of experience.

Med-Surg PedsAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchMedication SafetyAI summary · original source linked below

Double-checking medication administration is a common hospital safety practice, and independence between the two checkers is thought to be the key to its effectiveness, yet there has been no empirical evidence that independent double-checking (IDC) detects errors better than a single-nurse check. This multicentre randomised controlled simulation trial enrolled 82 nurses from two paediatric hospitals in 41 two-hour simulations, each involving two nurses who administered medication sets containing embedded errors under both single-checking and IDC conditions, with condition order and medication sets randomised. Across 1,160 dose administrations with 640 error-detection opportunities, nurses detected 72.2 percent of errors (95 percent CI 68.6 to 75.5). Overall, IDC yielded an 11 percent higher error detection rate than single-checking (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.11, 95 percent CI 1.01 to 1.21, P = 0.02; 77.7 percent for IDC versus 66.3 percent for single checks). That benefit was limited to experienced nurses: among early career nurses (under 5 years of experience) IDC produced no significant improvement (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.98, 95 percent CI 0.86 to 1.11, P = 0.7), while experienced nurses showed a 26 percent improvement (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.26, 95 percent CI 1.11 to 1.44, P less than 0.001). Evidence of social loafing was seen, particularly among early career nurses, whose detection was 26.0 percent higher when single-checking than in the role of first checker in IDC, and IDC required significantly more time (mean difference 4.96 minutes per medication set, P less than 0.001). The authors conclude that, given its inconsistent benefits, resource demands, and susceptibility to social loafing, IDC may be unsuitable as a universal safety strategy, and that strengthening single-checking competence and clinical judgement may be a more effective, scalable approach.

Key takeaways

In 41 two-hour simulations, 82 nurses from two paediatric hospitals administered medication sets with embedded errors under both single-checking and independent double-checking conditions.
Overall, independent double-checking detected 11 percent more errors than single-checking (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.11, 95 percent CI 1.01 to 1.21, P = 0.02; 77.7 percent versus 66.3 percent).
The benefit was limited to experienced nurses (26 percent improvement, P less than 0.001); among nurses with under five years of experience there was no significant improvement (P = 0.7).
Independent double-checking took about 5 minutes longer per medication set (mean difference 4.96 minutes, P less than 0.001), and social loafing lowered early career nurses' detection in the first-checker role.

Why this matters on shift

Independent double-checking is widely mandated and consumes considerable nursing time, yet its real benefit has been assumed rather than measured. This study may matter for nurses and safety leaders because it provides direct evidence that the practice helps experienced nurses catch errors but does not reliably help less experienced ones, which challenges applying it as a blanket rule.

Bedside takeaway

Be aware that in a simulation trial, independent double-checking caught more medication errors than single-checking only for experienced nurses, with no benefit for nurses under five years and signs of reduced individual vigilance when checking in pairs.

Nursing implications

For nurses and unit leaders, the findings suggest that independent double-checking is not automatically safer for every nurse or situation and can be undermined by social loafing, where a second checker relaxes their own vigilance. The results support investing in each nurse's own checking competence and clinical judgement, and reserving double-checks for the highest-risk medications, rather than treating a second signature as a guaranteed safety net.

Limitations & cautions

This was a simulation trial rather than a study of real bedside administration, so behavior with actual patients and consequences may differ, and it involved 82 nurses from two paediatric hospitals, which may limit how far the results extend to adult or other settings. Detecting deliberately embedded errors in a study scenario may not fully reflect the interruptions and workload of everyday practice.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

BMJ Quality & Safety (PubMed). Is independent double-checking superior to single-checking in medication administration error detection? A randomised controlled simulation trial.

Explain this for my unit

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Journal of Pediatric Nursing (PubMed)Jul 2, 2026Research Article

In a randomized controlled trial of 72 hospitalized children aged 5 to 10, giving a colorful medical sticker after an invasive procedure significantly reduced anxiety compared with usual care, though it did not significantly reduce pain.

PedsAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchAI summary · original source linked below

This randomized controlled trial enrolled 72 hospitalized children aged 5 to 10 years in a pediatrics department in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkiye, with 36 assigned to a sticker group and 36 to a control group. After an invasive procedure, children in the sticker group received a hypoallergenic, latex-free, colorful patterned medical sticker. Pain was assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale and anxiety with the Children's state anxiety measure, using reports from both the child and the researcher. Pain rose during the procedure and fell afterward in both groups (p less than or equal to 0.000). Anxiety was similar before and during the procedure (p greater than 0.05), but after the intervention anxiety was significantly lower in the sticker group than the control group (p = 0.019; p = 0.001). The sticker intervention was not statistically significant in reducing pain, though both children and researchers reported a tendency toward lower pain scores.

Key takeaways

In this randomized trial of 72 children aged 5 to 10 (36 per group), a colorful medical sticker after an invasive procedure significantly reduced anxiety versus usual care (p = 0.019; p = 0.001).
The sticker did not produce a statistically significant reduction in pain, though both children and researchers noted a tendency toward lower pain scores.
Pain increased during the procedure and decreased afterward in both groups (p less than or equal to 0.000).
The authors describe the sticker as a practical, low-cost, child-centered distraction method for post-procedural support.

Why this matters on shift

Invasive procedures are a common source of distress for hospitalized children, and pediatric nurses are usually the ones who deliver comfort afterward. This study may matter for nurses because it tests an extremely simple, low-cost tool, a sticker, and finds it eased children's anxiety after procedures, even though it did not clearly change measured pain.

Bedside takeaway

Worth knowing that in a small randomized trial, giving children a sticker after an invasive procedure significantly lowered their anxiety, though it did not significantly reduce measured pain.

Nursing implications

For pediatric nurses, the findings suggest that offering a child a sticker after an invasive procedure may be a simple, low-cost way to reduce anxiety and support a more positive experience. Because the trial was small and single-center and did not show a significant pain reduction, a sticker should be seen as a comfort measure that complements, not replaces, established pain management.

Limitations & cautions

This was a single-center randomized trial of only 72 children in one region of Turkiye, so results may not generalise to other settings or ages. Anxiety and pain were assessed by scales including researcher report, the pain reduction was not statistically significant, and the short post-procedure window means longer-term effects were not measured.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Journal of Pediatric Nursing (PubMed). The effect of sticker intervention on children's pain and anxiety after invasive procedures.

Explain this for my unit

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

The Lancet Global Health (PubMed)Nov 1, 2025Research Article

An E-MOTIVE trial sub-study found that a 300 mL blood-loss threshold plus clinical signs recognized postpartum hemorrhage about twice as fast as the older 500 mL threshold.

L&D / OBAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchAI summary · original source linked below

This nested observational study within the E-MOTIVE cluster-randomised trial observed 2,578 women after vaginal birth at 39 hospitals in four African countries; 295 (11.4%) were diagnosed with postpartum hemorrhage. Where staff used an objective 300 mL threshold plus at least one abnormal clinical sign, median time to diagnosis was 15 to 17 minutes, versus 30 minutes where the older 500 mL threshold dominated. All PPH that required an intervention was diagnosed within 90 minutes, and earlier recognition let women be treated sooner.

Key takeaways

Among 2,578 women after vaginal birth, 295 (11.4%) were diagnosed with postpartum hemorrhage.
A 300 mL threshold plus an abnormal clinical sign was associated with a 15 to 17 minute median time to diagnosis.
Relying mainly on the 500 mL threshold was associated with a longer 30 minute median time to diagnosis.
All PPH that required an intervention was diagnosed within 90 minutes of vaginal birth.

Why this matters on shift

The window right after a vaginal birth is when bleeding can escalate fast and quietly. This may matter because pairing a measured 300 mL blood-loss threshold with abnormal clinical signs, rather than waiting for 500 mL, roughly halved time to recognition, which for a nurse doing quantitative blood loss could mean escalating and starting the bleeding bundle while the patient is still stable.

Bedside takeaway

Worth knowing that pairing a measured 300 mL blood-loss threshold with abnormal clinical signs recognized postpartum hemorrhage about twice as fast as waiting for the older 500 mL threshold.

Nursing implications

Measure blood loss objectively rather than estimating, and don't wait for 500 mL: pair cumulative loss with abnormal signs (tachycardia, falling blood pressure, reduced consciousness, low urine output) to flag PPH early. Treat the first 60 to 90 minutes after birth as the highest-yield window to recognize and escalate.

Limitations & cautions

This was an observational study nested in trial intervention sites in four African countries, so practice patterns and timing may not generalize to other settings or to cesarean births. It describes thresholds in use rather than randomizing them head-to-head, so it cannot prove the lower threshold alone causes better outcomes.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

The Lancet Global Health (PubMed). When are postpartum haemorrhages diagnosed? A nested observational study within the E-MOTIVE cluster-randomised trial.

Explain this for my unit

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Key takeaways

Practice implications

Limitations & cautions

Exact source links

More updates for this clinical area

Independent double-checking caught more medication errors than single-checking only for experienced nurses in a simulation trial

A simple sticker after invasive procedures lowered children's anxiety in a randomized trial

Lower blood-loss threshold plus clinical signs catches postpartum hemorrhage faster