| Literature DB >> 19134187 |
Lars T Fadnes1, Ingunn M S Engebretsen, Henry Wamani, Jonathan Wangisi, James K Tumwine, Thorkild Tylleskär.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The choice of infant feeding method is important for HIV-positive mothers in order to optimise the chance of survival of their infants and to minimise the risk of HIV transmission. The aim of this study was to investigate feeding practices, including breastfeeding, in the context of PMTCT for infants and children under two years of age born to HIV-positive mothers in Uganda.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19134187 PMCID: PMC2657132 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-9-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.125
Median breastfeeding duration with Kaplan-Meier analysis including all the infants (n = 235) and a Mantel-Cox log rank test to compare ranking of the estimates
| n (%) | Median in months | 95% CI | Log Rank test (Mantel-Cox) | |
| None | 27 (11) | 18 | 15.0 – 21.0 | |
| Stopped in primary | 125 (53) | 14 | 12.1 – 15.9 | |
| Completed primary (7 years) | 39 (17) | 12 | 8.0 – 16.0 | |
| Secondary education | 37 (16) | 8 | 6.8 – 9.2 | |
| Higher education (≥ 12 years) | 7 (3) | 3 | 0 – 10.2 | |
| None | 14 (6) | b | b | |
| Stopped in primary | 72 (32) | 13 | 11.6 – 14.4 | |
| Completed primary (7 years) | 62 (27) | 15 | 11.8 – 18.2 | |
| Secondary education | 50 (22) | 9 | 7.3 – 10.7 | |
| Higher education (≥ 12 years) | 30 (13) | 8 | 3.8 – 12.2 | |
| ≤ 24 | 22 (10) | 18 | 16.3 – 19.7 | |
| 25 – 29 | 61 (26) | 12 | 10.9 – 13.1 | |
| 30 – 34 | 85 (36) | 12 | 11.3 – 12.7 | |
| ≥ 35 | 67 (29) | 12 | 11.3 – 12.7 | |
| Married/cohabiting | 91 (39) | 12 | 9.4 – 14.6 | |
| Widowed | 112 (48) | 12 | 11.4 – 12.6 | |
| Divorced/separated or single | 32 (14) | 13 | 4.5 – 21.5 | |
| Bottom quintile, poorest | 47 (20) | 17 | 15.2 – 18.8 | |
| 2nd quintile | 47 (20) | 12 | 11.3 – 12.7 | |
| 3rd quintile | 46 (20) | 9 | 6.0 – 12.0 | |
| 4th quintile | 48 (20) | 16 | 11.4 – 20.6 | |
| Top quintile, least poor | 46 (20) | 8 | 5.9 – 10.1 | |
| Farming | 201 (86) | 12 | 10.9 – 13.1 | |
| Do not farm | 34 (14) | 8 | 6.9 – 9.1 | |
| Rural | 205 (87) | 12 | 11.0 – 13.0 | |
| Urban | 30 (13) | 8 | 4.7 – 11.3 | |
| After delivery | 85 (36) | 15 | 10.5 – 19.5 | |
| Before delivery | 150 (64) | 12 | 10.4 – 13.6 | |
| Did not attend | 107 (46) | 14 | 10.8 – 17.2 | |
| Attended | 128 (54) | 9 | 7.2 – 10.8 | |
| No | 44 (19) | 18 | 15.7 – 20.3 | |
| Yes | 191 (81) | 12 | 11.5 – 12.5 | |
| Very healthy | 33 (14) | 12 | 9.5 – 14.5 | |
| Quite healthy | 138 (59) | 12 | 11.4 – 12.6 | |
| Not very healthy | 64 (27) | 14 | 9.7 – 18.3 | |
| Very healthy | 37 (16) | 9 | 5.1 – 12.9 | |
| Quite healthy | 111 (48) | 12 | 10.1 – 13.9 | |
| Not very healthy | 83 (36) | 12 | 10.8 – 13.2 | |
| Sure it would be good | 29 (12) | 7 | 5.6 – 8.4 | |
| Think it would be good | 42 (18) | 12 | 8.6 – 15.4 | |
| Think it would hurt | 104 (44) | 12 | 11.0 – 13.0 | |
| Sure it would hurt | 59 (25) | 15 | 12.0 – 18.0 |
adf (degrees or freedom)
b could not be measured (only 3 stopped among 14 cases and 151 months of follow-up)
c linear trend assumed
Recall comparison of different feeding patterns based on 24-hour, 1-week and since birth recall. N (%) of infants in age range feeding in particular pattern based on specific recall period.
| 24-hour recall | 1-week recall | Since birth recall | |
| Exclusive breastfeeding | 9 (24) | 8 (22) | 5 (14) |
| Predominant breastfeeding | 3 (8) | 3 (8) | 5 (14) |
| Complementary feeding incl. breast milk | 19 (51) | 20 (54) | 21 (57) |
| Replacement feeding | 6 (16) | 6 (16) | 6 (16) |
| Exclusive breastfeeding | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Predominant breastfeeding | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Complementary feeding incl. breast milk | 36 (68) | 36 (68) | 36 (68) |
| Replacement feeding | 17 (32) | 17 (32) | 17 (32) |
0 – 5 months: n = 37; 6 – 11 months: n = 53.
Figure 1Breastfeeding duration in months (x-axis) for different groups of mothers based on their education. Proportion still breastfeeding (y-axis) visualised with a Kaplan-Meier-plot.
Cox regression of breastfeeding cessation, unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratio (HR). Only factors in the final adjusted model have HR estimates (right-hand columns).
| HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | |
| None | 1 | 1 | ||
| Stopped in primary | 1.3 | 0.7 – 2.4 | 1.3 | 0.7 – 2.5 |
| Completed primary (7 years) | 1.9* | 1.0 – 3.7 | 2.1* | 1.0 – 4.2 |
| Secondary education | 3.0* | 1.5 – 6.0 | 2.4* | 1.1 – 5.0 |
| Higher education (≥ 12 years) | 6.4* | 2.2 – 18 | 4.5* | 1.4 – 15 |
| None | 1 | |||
| Stopped in primary | 1.7 | 0.6 – 4.8 | ||
| Completed primary (7 years) | 1.7 | 0.6 – 4.9 | ||
| Secondary education | 3.0* | 1.1 – 8.4 | ||
| Higher education (≥ 12 years) | 3.0 | 1.0 – 8.8 | ||
| ≤ 24 | 1 | |||
| 25 – 29 | 1.8 | 0.8 – 3.7 | ||
| 30 – 34 | 1.7 | 0.9 – 3.5 | ||
| ≥ 35 | 1.8 | 0.9 – 3.7 | ||
| Married/cohabiting | 1 | |||
| Widowed | 1.2 | 0.9 – 1.8 | ||
| Divorced/separated or single | 1.5 | 0.8 – 2.6 | ||
| Bottom quintile, poorest | 1 | 1 | ||
| 2nd quintile | 1.8 | 1.0 – 3.2 | 2.4* | 1.2 – 4.8 |
| 3rd quintile | 2.2* | 1.2 – 4.0 | 2.6* | 1.3 – 5.1 |
| 4th quintile | 1.3 | 0.7 – 2.4 | 1.1 | 0.5 – 2.3 |
| Top quintile, least poor | 3.1* | 1.7 – 5.5 | 3.0* | 1.5 – 6.0 |
| Farming | 1 | |||
| Do not farm | 1.8* | 1.1 – 2.7 | ||
| Rural | 1 | |||
| Urban | 1.5 | 0.9 – 2.5 | ||
| After delivery | 1 | |||
| Before delivery | 1.7* | 1.2 – 2.4 | ||
| Did not attend | 1 | 1 | ||
| Attended | 2.0* | 1.4 – 2.8 | 2.0* | 1.3 – 3.0 |
| No | 1 | 1 | ||
| Yes | 2.2* | 1.4 – 3.7 | 1.9* | 1.1 – 3.3 |
| Very healthy | 1.1 | 0.6 – 1.9 | ||
| Quite healthy | 1.1 | 0.8 – 1.7 | ||
| Not very healthy | 1 | |||
| Very healthy | 1.3 | 0.7 – 2.1 | ||
| Quite healthy | 1.0 | 0.7 – 1.4 | ||
| Not very healthy | 1 | |||
| Sure it would be good | 2.8* | 1.5 – 5.0 | 3.1* | 1.6 – 5.8 |
| Think it would be good | 1.3 | 0.7 – 2.2 | 1.7 | 1.0 – 3.1 |
| Think it would hurt | 1.3 | 0.9 – 2.1 | 2.0* | 1.2 – 3.2 |
| Sure it would hurt | 1 | 1 | ||
*p < 0.05 (group is significantly different from reference group)
HR (hazard ratio)
Figure 2Breastfeeding duration in months (x-axis) for different socio-economic groups. Proportion still breastfeeding (y-axis) visualised with a Kaplan-Meier-plot.
Reasons for stopping breastfeeding
| Main reason | Additional reasons a | Total a | |
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
| Health workers advice | 32 (28) | 22 (19) | 54 (47) |
| Illness (weakness, body pain etc) | 29 (25) | 23 (20) | 52 (45) |
| HIV-diagnosis | 20 (17) | 54 (47) | 74 (64) |
| Not enough milk | 10 (9) | 16 (14) | 26 (22) |
| Breastfeeding difficulties | 10 (9) | 5 (4) | 15 (13) |
| Custom related (e.g. grown "big enough") | 9 (8) | 11 (9) | 20 (17) |
| Family pressure | 2 (2) | 0 (0) | 2 (2) |
| New pregnancy | 2 (2) | 0 (0) | 2 (2) |
| Work situation | 1 (1) | 4 (3) | 5 (4) |
| Other reasons | 1 (1) | 4 (3) | 5 (4) |
| Total | 116 (100) | ||
a Reasons other than main reason reported to be important for the choice to stop breastfeeding. 16 (14%) reported main reason only, 66 (57%) reported one additional reason, 28 (24%) reported two additional reasons and 6 (5%) reported three additional reasons.