Literature DB >> 22277543

Systematic review of peer support for breastfeeding continuation: metaregression analysis of the effect of setting, intensity, and timing.

Kate Jolly1, Lucy Ingram, Khalid S Khan, Jonathan J Deeks, Nick Freemantle, Christine MacArthur.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of setting, intensity, and timing of peer support on breast feeding.
DESIGN: Systematic review and metaregression analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, Medline, CINAHL, the National Research Register, and British Nursing Index were searched from inception or from 1980 to 2011. Review methods Study selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment were carried out independently and in duplicate. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for individual studies and pooled. Effects were estimated for studies grouped according to setting (high income countries, low or middle income countries, and the United Kingdom), intensity (<5 and ≥5 planned contacts), and timing of peer support (postnatal period with or without antenatal care), and analysed using metaregression for any and exclusive breast feeding at last study follow-up.
RESULTS: Peer support interventions had a significantly greater effect on any breast feeding in low or middle income countries (P<0.001), reducing the risk of not breast feeding at all by 30% (relative risk 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.82) compared with a reduction of 7% (0.93, 0.87 to 1.00) in high income countries. Similarly, the risk of non-exclusive breast feeding decreased significantly more in low or middle income countries than in high income countries: 37% (0.63, 0.52 to 0.78) compared with 10% (0.90, 0.85 to 0.97); P=0.01. No significant effect on breast feeding was observed in UK based studies. Peer support had a greater effect on any breastfeeding rates when given at higher intensity (P=0.02) and only delivered in the postnatal period (P<0.001), although no differences were observed of its effect on exclusive breastfeeding rates by intensity or timing.
CONCLUSION: Although peer support interventions increase breastfeeding continuation in low or middle income countries, especially exclusive breast feeding, this does not seem to apply in high income countries, particularly the United Kingdom, where breastfeeding support is part of routine postnatal healthcare. Peer support of low intensity does not seem to be effective. Policy relating to provision of peer support should be based on more specific evidence on setting and any new peer services in high income countries need to undergo concurrent evaluation.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22277543     DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d8287

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  57 in total

1.  The impact of breastfeeding peer support for mothers aged under 25: a time series analysis.

Authors:  Sarah Scott; Catherine Pritchard; Lisa Szatkowski
Journal:  Matern Child Nutr       Date:  2016-01-26       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Understanding process and context in breastfeeding support interventions: The potential of qualitative research.

Authors:  Dawn Leeming; Joyce Marshall; Abigail Locke
Journal:  Matern Child Nutr       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Feasibility and acceptability of a motivational interviewing breastfeeding peer support intervention.

Authors:  Lauren Copeland; Laura Merrett; Cheryl McQuire; Aimee Grant; Nina Gobat; Sally Tedstone; Rebecca Playle; Sue Channon; Julia Sanders; Rhiannon Phillips; Billie Hunter; Amy Brown; Deborah Fitzsimmons; Michael Robling; Shantini Paranjothy
Journal:  Matern Child Nutr       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Interventions for promoting the initiation of breastfeeding.

Authors:  Olukunmi O Balogun; Elizabeth J O'Sullivan; Alison McFadden; Erika Ota; Anna Gavine; Christine D Garner; Mary J Renfrew; Stephen MacGillivray
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-11-09

Review 5.  A realist review of one-to-one breastfeeding peer support experiments conducted in developed country settings.

Authors:  Heather Trickey; Gill Thomson; Aimee Grant; Julia Sanders; Mala Mann; Simon Murphy; Shantini Paranjothy
Journal:  Matern Child Nutr       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 6.  Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies.

Authors:  Alison McFadden; Anna Gavine; Mary J Renfrew; Angela Wade; Phyll Buchanan; Jane L Taylor; Emma Veitch; Anne Marie Rennie; Susan A Crowther; Sara Neiman; Stephen MacGillivray
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-02-28

7.  Effectiveness of Peer Counselor Support on Breastfeeding Outcomes in WIC-Enrolled Women.

Authors:  Vanessa Assibey-Mensah; Barbara Suter; Kelly Thevenet-Morrison; Holly Widanka; Lynn Edmunds; Jackson Sekhobo; Ann Dozier
Journal:  J Nutr Educ Behav       Date:  2019-04-11       Impact factor: 3.045

8.  Determinants of perceived insufficient milk among new mothers in León, Nicaragua.

Authors:  Cara Safon; Danya Keene; William J Ugarte Guevara; Sara Kiani; Darby Herkert; Erick Esquivel Muñoz; Rafael Pérez-Escamilla
Journal:  Matern Child Nutr       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 3.092

9.  Pressure and judgement within a dichotomous landscape of infant feeding: a grounded theory study to explore why breastfeeding women do not access peer support provision.

Authors:  Louise Hunt; Gill Thomson
Journal:  Matern Child Nutr       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 3.092

10.  An Integrated Model of Breastfeeding Peer Counseling Support is Feasible and Associated with Improved Exclusive Breastfeeding.

Authors:  Mary R Rozga; Patricia A Benton; Jean M Kerver; Beth H Olson
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2016-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.