The effects of pregnant women’s breastfeeding myths on their breastfeeding self-efficacy: a cross-sectional study
Abstract
Myths lead to insufficient milk secretion perception and a sense of failure in mothers and are among the most common reasons for cessation of breastfeeding. Previous studies have revealed that women's beliefs in breastfeeding myths are quite common and that some traditional practices are known by all mothers and applied at low rates. The objective of the present study was to determine the effects of pregnant women’s breastfeeding myths on their breastfeeding self-efficacy. This cross-sectional study was conducted on 483 nulliparous pregnant women in the gynecology and obstetrics outpatient clinics of a hospital in the east of Türkiye between March 29, 2024, and September 30, 2024. The research data were collected using the Information Form, Breastfeeding Myths Scale, and Prenatal Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale. The independent samples t-test, variance, Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation analysis, and single regression analysis were used to analyze the data. Pregnant women scored 68.01 ± 17.72 on average on the BMS, and 98.6% had breastfeeding myths at a low level. Pregnant women scored 75.01 ± 14.89 on average on the PBSES. The analysis detected a negative and low-level correlation between the BMS and PBSES scores (p < 0.001). The study found that pregnant women’s breastfeeding self-efficacy decreases with an increase in their breastfeeding myths. Breastfeeding myths explain 23% of the change in breastfeeding self-efficacy.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 483 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.