OBJECTIVE: To identify differences in breastfeeding-related knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and experiences between women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and women without GDM. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and prospective cohort study. SETTING: Secondary analysis of data from the U.S. Infant Feeding Practices Study II. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women with GDM (n = 195) and pregnant women without GDM (n = 2,815) were included in cross-sectional analyses. For prospective analyses, complete data were available at the postpartum time point for 107 women with and 1,626 women without GDM. METHODS: We compared women with and without GDM for breastfeeding knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs during pregnancy and hospital experiences and problems with breastfeeding after birth. We used multivariate logistic regression to estimate associations between GDM and dependent variables. RESULTS: Women with GDM were less likely to say that breastfeeding is the best way to feed an infant (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.46, 0.85]), more likely to say that the fathers of their infants prefer formula feeding (aOR = 1.74, 95% CI [1.02, 2.97]) or mixed feeding (aOR = 1.78, 95% CI [1.21, 2.61]), and more likely to say their physicians prefer formula (aOR = 2.82, 95% CI [1.17, 6.79]). Women with GDM were less likely to report feeling comfortable breastfeeding in front of female friends (aOR = 0.70, 95% CI [0.50, 0.98]). Newborns of women with GDM were less likely to stay in their mothers' hospital rooms (aOR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.36, 0.85]). CONCLUSION: We identified differences in breastfeeding-related knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and experiences between women with GDM and women without GDM that could be targets for further research and intervention.
OBJECTIVE: To identify differences in breastfeeding-related knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and experiences between women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and women without GDM. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and prospective cohort study. SETTING: Secondary analysis of data from the U.S. Infant Feeding Practices Study II. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women with GDM (n = 195) and pregnant women without GDM (n = 2,815) were included in cross-sectional analyses. For prospective analyses, complete data were available at the postpartum time point for 107 women with and 1,626 women without GDM. METHODS: We compared women with and without GDM for breastfeeding knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs during pregnancy and hospital experiences and problems with breastfeeding after birth. We used multivariate logistic regression to estimate associations between GDM and dependent variables. RESULTS:Women with GDM were less likely to say that breastfeeding is the best way to feed an infant (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.46, 0.85]), more likely to say that the fathers of their infants prefer formula feeding (aOR = 1.74, 95% CI [1.02, 2.97]) or mixed feeding (aOR = 1.78, 95% CI [1.21, 2.61]), and more likely to say their physicians prefer formula (aOR = 2.82, 95% CI [1.17, 6.79]). Women with GDM were less likely to report feeling comfortable breastfeeding in front of female friends (aOR = 0.70, 95% CI [0.50, 0.98]). Newborns of women with GDM were less likely to stay in their mothers' hospital rooms (aOR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.36, 0.85]). CONCLUSION: We identified differences in breastfeeding-related knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and experiences between women with GDM and women without GDM that could be targets for further research and intervention.
Authors: Danielle R Stevens; Sarah N Taylor; James R Roberts; Brian Neelon; Roger B Newman; John E Vena; Kelly J Hunt Journal: Breastfeed Med Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Nada Alyousefi; Arwa Alemam; Dena Altwaijri; Sarah Alarifi; Haifa Alessa Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 3.390