Background:In the context of decreasing breastfeeding rates and unsuccessful breastfeeding promotion campaigns, a qualitative research project in the Northern part of the Netherlands was initiated.Objectives:As part of the overall project, the aim of this study was to explore the content and sources of breastfeeding knowledge among primiparous women. Identifying and categorizing the content and the sources of breastfeeding knowledge could guide professionals such as midwives and maternity nurses as well as others in the women’s surroundings to engage in disseminating knowledge and therefore support women in achieving their breastfeeding goals.Methods:We conducted 26 in-depth interviews from the emic perspective with 13 new mothers pre- and postpartum, up to saturation level. Transcripts were analysed applying thematic analysis. As sensitising concepts, the themes identified were divided into two categories: those gained from 'professional' sources and those obtained from 'popular' sources.Results:Five knowledge content themes were identified: (1) pros and cons of breastfeeding, (2) how breastfeeding works, (3) individual breastfeeding practice, (4) expressing milk, and (5) formula feeding. ‘Professional’ sources are perceived as more helpful than ‘popular’ sources, whereas ‘intuition’ was inductively identified as an important knowledge source.Conclusion:Limited breastfeeding practice exposure, along with the recommendations to breastfeed for six months and perceptions of breastfeeding as ‘natural’ at the same time, generates much pressure in women. Emphasizing all knowledge content in campaigns, addressing a variety of target groups in women’s social environment, and recognizing intuition as an adequate source of knowledge supported by professionals will facilitate women in making informed infant feeding decisions.
LINK
A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prevalence of automatically listing (a) senior member(s) of a department as co-author(s) on all submitted articles in health sciences and the prevalence of degrees of support on a 5-point justification scale. Survey research was searched in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of studies and conducted quantitative syntheses. We identified 15 eligible surveys, that provided 67 results, all of which were rated as having low quality. A pooled estimate of 20% [95% CI 16–25] (10 surveys, 3619 respondents) of researchers in various health sciences reported that a senior member of their department was automatically listed as an author on all submitted articles. Furthermore, 28% [95% CI 22–34] of researchers (10 surveys, 2180 respondents) felt that this practice was ‘never’, 24% [95% CI 22–27] ‘rarely’, 25% [95% CI 23–28] ‘sometimes’, 13% [95% CI 9–17] ‘most of the time’, and 8% [95% CI 6–9] ‘always justified’. The practice of automatically assigning senior members of departments as co-authors on all submitted manuscripts may be common in the health sciences; with those admitting to this practice finding it unjustified in most cases.Registration of the protocol The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. Link: https://osf.io/4eywp/.
MULTIFILE
A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21–31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15–21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47–56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9–12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13–18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys’ methods and reporting needs improvement.
MULTIFILE
![Prevalence of responsible research practices among academics in The Netherlands [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20240419024525240089.f5_0352_4033_99e3_b9d3476cb04f_110664_gowri_gopalakrishn-thumbnail-400x300.png)
