OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of proactive telephone breastfeeding support in low-income, primiparous, primarily Latina women on 1) duration and exclusivity of breastfeeding, 2) satisfaction with feeding, 3) rationale for discontinuing breastfeeding and 4) health care utilization. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial comparing usual care to 2 weeks of daily telephone callsby nurses by using culturally informed scripted protocols; and qualitative study of focused interviews on a sample of women in the intervention group (n = 40). RESULTS:Breastfeeding duration and exclusivity rates, feeding method satisfaction, and reasons for stopping breastfeeding did not differ significantly between intervention (n = 161) and control (n = 180) groups, with 74% of both breastfeeding at 1 month and 28% and 37%, respectively, at 6 months. Insufficient milk supply was the main reason for stopping in both groups. Intervention infants were less likely to have a sick visit by 1 month (25%) than controls (35%, P = .05). Qualitative interviews revealed that the intervention was informative and helpful, with breastfeeding reported as healthier but harder; formula was a good alternative. Intervention mothers reporting < or =2 supplemental formula feedings on day 4 were more likely than mothers reporting > or =3 supplemental feedings to breastfeed at 1 month (odds ratio 7.7; 95% confidence interval 2.4-24.3). CONCLUSIONS: Two weeks of daily telephone support did not increase breastfeeding duration but was associated with a decrease in sick visits in the first month. Early supplementation and the perception of formula as a good alternative to dealing with the breastfeeding difficulties appeared to be factors in failure of the intervention. 2010 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of proactive telephone breastfeeding support in low-income, primiparous, primarily Latina women on 1) duration and exclusivity of breastfeeding, 2) satisfaction with feeding, 3) rationale for discontinuing breastfeeding and 4) health care utilization. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial comparing usual care to 2 weeks of daily telephone calls by nurses by using culturally informed scripted protocols; and qualitative study of focused interviews on a sample of women in the intervention group (n = 40). RESULTS: Breastfeeding duration and exclusivity rates, feeding method satisfaction, and reasons for stopping breastfeeding did not differ significantly between intervention (n = 161) and control (n = 180) groups, with 74% of both breastfeeding at 1 month and 28% and 37%, respectively, at 6 months. Insufficient milk supply was the main reason for stopping in both groups. Intervention infants were less likely to have a sick visit by 1 month (25%) than controls (35%, P = .05). Qualitative interviews revealed that the intervention was informative and helpful, with breastfeeding reported as healthier but harder; formula was a good alternative. Intervention mothers reporting < or =2 supplemental formula feedings on day 4 were more likely than mothers reporting > or =3 supplemental feedings to breastfeed at 1 month (odds ratio 7.7; 95% confidence interval 2.4-24.3). CONCLUSIONS: Two weeks of daily telephone support did not increase breastfeeding duration but was associated with a decrease in sick visits in the first month. Early supplementation and the perception of formula as a good alternative to dealing with the breastfeeding difficulties appeared to be factors in failure of the intervention. 2010 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Hong Jiang; Mu Li; Dongling Yang; Li Ming Wen; Cynthia Hunter; Gengsheng He; Xu Qian Journal: Breastfeed Med Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Melissa C Kay; Rushina Cholera; Kori B Flower; H Shonna Yin; Russell L Rothman; Lee M Sanders; Alan M Delamater; Eliana M Perrin Journal: Breastfeed Med Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Karen Bonuck; Alison Stuebe; Josephine Barnett; Miriam H Labbok; Jason Fletcher; Peter S Bernstein Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jill Demirci; Virginia Kotzias; Debra L Bogen; Kristin N Ray; Lori Uscher-Pines Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Li Ming Wen; Chris Rissel; Huilan Xu; Sarah Taki; Limin Buchanan; Karen Bedford; Philayrath Phongsavan; Louise A Baur Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 16.193