OBJECTIVE: To examine infant feeding intentions of HIV-infected and uninfected women and the appropriateness of their choices according to their home resources; and to determine their adherence to their intentions in the first postnatal week. METHODS: Feeding intentions of pregnant women were compared against four resources that facilitate replacement feeding: clean water, adequate fuel, access to a refrigerator and regular maternal income. First-week feeding practices were documented. FINDINGS: The antenatal feeding intentions of 1253 HIV-infected women were: exclusive breastfeeding 73%; replacement feeding 9%; undecided 18%. Three percent had access to all four resources, of whom 23% chose replacement feeding. Of those choosing replacement feeding, 8% had access to all four resources. A clean water supply and regular maternal income were independently associated with intention to replacement feed (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-3.2; AOR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2-3.5, respectively). Significantly more HIV-infected women intending to exclusively breastfeed, rather than replacement feed, adhered to their intention in week one (exclusive breastfeeding 78%; replacement feeding 42%; P<0.001). Of 1238 HIV-uninfected women, 82% intended to exclusively breastfeed; 2% to replacement feed; and 16% were undecided. Seventy-five percent who intended to exclusively breastfeed adhered to this intention postnatally, and only 11 infants (<1%) received no breast milk. The number of antenatal home visits significantly influenced adherence to feeding intention. CONCLUSION: Most HIV-infected women did not have the resources for safe replacement feeding, instead choosing appropriately to exclusively breastfeed. Adherence to feeding intention among HIV-infected women was higher in those who chose to exclusively breastfeed than to replacement feed. With appropriate counselling and support, spillover of suboptimal feeding practices to HIV-negative women is minimal.
OBJECTIVE: To examine infant feeding intentions of HIV-infected and uninfected women and the appropriateness of their choices according to their home resources; and to determine their adherence to their intentions in the first postnatal week. METHODS: Feeding intentions of pregnant women were compared against four resources that facilitate replacement feeding: clean water, adequate fuel, access to a refrigerator and regular maternal income. First-week feeding practices were documented. FINDINGS: The antenatal feeding intentions of 1253 HIV-infectedwomen were: exclusive breastfeeding 73%; replacement feeding 9%; undecided 18%. Three percent had access to all four resources, of whom 23% chose replacement feeding. Of those choosing replacement feeding, 8% had access to all four resources. A clean water supply and regular maternal income were independently associated with intention to replacement feed (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-3.2; AOR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2-3.5, respectively). Significantly more HIV-infectedwomen intending to exclusively breastfeed, rather than replacement feed, adhered to their intention in week one (exclusive breastfeeding 78%; replacement feeding 42%; P<0.001). Of 1238 HIV-uninfected women, 82% intended to exclusively breastfeed; 2% to replacement feed; and 16% were undecided. Seventy-five percent who intended to exclusively breastfeed adhered to this intention postnatally, and only 11 infants (<1%) received no breast milk. The number of antenatal home visits significantly influenced adherence to feeding intention. CONCLUSION: Most HIV-infectedwomen did not have the resources for safe replacement feeding, instead choosing appropriately to exclusively breastfeed. Adherence to feeding intention among HIV-infectedwomen was higher in those who chose to exclusively breastfeed than to replacement feed. With appropriate counselling and support, spillover of suboptimal feeding practices to HIV-negative women is minimal.
Authors: Nishi Suryavanshi; Sasi Jonnalagadda; Ashwini S Erande; Jayagowri Sastry; Hemalata Pisal; Kapila E Bharucha; Aparna Shrotri; Pandurang M Bulakh; Mrudula A Phadke; Robert C Bollinger; Anita V Shankar Journal: J Nutr Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Mark N Lurie; Brian G Williams; Khangelani Zuma; David Mkaya-Mwamburi; Geoff Garnett; Adriaan W Sturm; Michael D Sweat; Joel Gittelsohn; Salim S Abdool Karim Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Nigel C Rollins; Renaud Becquet; Ruth M Bland; Anna Coutsoudis; Hoosen M Coovadia; Marie-Louise Newell Journal: AIDS Date: 2009-03-27 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Nigel C Rollins; Renaud Becquet; Ruth M Bland; Anna Coutsoudis; Hoosen M Coovadia; Marie-Louise Newell Journal: AIDS Date: 2008-11-12 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Renaud Becquet; Ruth Bland; Valériane Leroy; Nigel C Rollins; Didier K Ekouevi; Anna Coutsoudis; François Dabis; Hoosen M Coovadia; Roger Salamon; Marie-Louise Newell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-10-16 Impact factor: 3.240