| Literature DB >> 29955729 |
Elizabeth L Fox1,2, Gretel H Pelto1, Haim Bar3, Kathleen M Rasmussen1, Sera L Young4, Marie Guerda Debrosse5, Vanessa A Rouzier5, Jean William Pape5,6, David L Pelletier1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cognitive processes involved in individuals' perceptions and prioritization of information, and how these change with experience or exposure to interventions, are rarely examined in the evaluation of nutrition interventions. Exclusive breastfeeding counseling is a common infant and young-child feeding intervention and is used to promote HIV-free survival in the prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs. However, it is often designed without adequate attention to the changes in mothers' perceptions over the course of their early breastfeeding experiences.Entities:
Keywords: HIV; Haiti; breastfeeding; cognitive mapping; infant and young child feeding; maternal perceptions; pile sorting; pregnant and lactating women
Year: 2018 PMID: 29955729 PMCID: PMC6007337 DOI: 10.1093/cdn/nzy017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Dev Nutr ISSN: 2475-2991
Conceptual differences between etic and emic approaches in nutrition research
| Qualitative approach | Quantitative approach | |
|---|---|---|
| Etic approach | Constructs and hypotheses are predefined; subjects are asked to respond in relation to predefined categories, constructs and understandings [e.g., What barriers do you face when trying to exclusively breastfeed for 6 mo? (with prompts for social support, time, workplace, self-efficacy)] | Prespecified variables to measure dependent and independent variables; randomized controlled trials; prespecified regression models (e.g., What is the effect of social support on duration of exclusive breastfeeding?) |
| Emic approach | Constructs emerge from the data using locally-ascribed meaning and categories [e.g., Tell me about your experiences feeding your 3-mo-old baby? (with follow-up questions and identification of emergent themes)] | Varied methods to detect patterns that emerge from the data and quantitatively describe the similarities and differences (e.g., counts of emic themes, multidimensional scaling analysis of pile sorting, factor analysis of Q-sorts) |
The common infant feeding messages used in the pile-sorting exercises with 30 HIV-infected Haitian women
| ID | Infant feeding message |
|---|---|
| 1 | Exclusively breastfeed for the first 6 mo, without giving any other food or liquids |
| 2 | Initiate breastfeeding early for your baby to habituate to the breast |
| 3 | Express your milk in a clean vessel if you are going out |
| 4 | Breastfeed regularly for your breast milk to be produced/to come |
| 5 | After 6 mo, breastfeed and give other foods until 1 y |
| 6 | You can breastfeed if you have HIV if you take your medication |
| 7 | If your breast is hurt, see the doctor and use your other breast in the interim |
| 8 | Exclusively breastfeed for the first 6 mo to protect the baby from getting HIV |
| 9 | Breastfeed the baby to protect it from illness/infection, such as diarrhea |
| 10 | Exclusively breastfeed because it is more economical |
| 11 | Breastfeed for the baby's brain to develop well |
| 12 | Breastfeed regularly so that your baby gains more weight |
| 13 | Give your baby other foods to prevent it from pulling gas from you |
| 14 | Do not breastfeed if you have not eaten well |
| 15 | Give the baby |
| 16 | Do not breastfeed after 6 mo so that the baby does not get the virus |
| 17 | If you have bad blood or you have spent too much time out, do not breastfeed, your milk has spoiled |
| 18 | Wash your hands each time you are going to breastfeed |
Lok is a commonly used prelacteal feed in Haiti that is made from castor oil, grated nutmeg, sour orange juice, garlic, unrefined sugar, and water (42).
Characteristics of HIV-infected mothers who completed the pile-sorting interviews at pregnancy, 0- to 1-mo postpartum, and 3- to 5-mo postpartum
| Pregnancy | 0–1 mo | 3–5 mo | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | |
| Age, | 31.1 ± 5.3 | 31.3 ± 5.3 | 31.4 ± 5.4 |
| Children, | 3.0 ± 1.4 | 3.2 ± 1.4 | 3.1 ± 1.4 |
| Primiparous (yes), | 4 (14.8) | 2 (9.1) | 2 (10.5) |
| Past EBF experience (yes), | 5 (18.5) | 5 (22.7) | 5 (26.3) |
| Current practice (EBF), | 22 (81.5) | 19 (86.4) | 17 (89.5) |
| Perceived difficulty of EBF, | |||
| None | 17 (63.0) | 14 (63.6) | 15 (78.9) |
| Somewhat | 6 (22.2) | 7 (31.8) | 3 (15.8) |
| Very | 4 (14.8) | 1 (4.5) | 1 (5.3) |
| Perceived BF support, | 18 (72.0) | 16 (72.7) | 14 (73.7) |
| Perceived social support, | |||
| Low | 9 (33.3) | 4 (18.2) | 2 (10.5) |
| Medium | 17 (63.0) | 16 (72.7) | 17 (89.5) |
| High | 1 (3.7) | 2 (9.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| Maternal depression, | |||
| None | 11 (40.7) | 12 (54.5) | 11 (57.9) |
| Sometimes | 14 (51.9) | 8 (36.4) | 6 (31.6) |
| Always | 2 (7.4) | 2 (9.1) | 2 (10.5) |
| Duration of HIV infection, | |||
| <1 y | 3 (11.1) | 3 (13.6) | 3 (15.8) |
| 1-4.9 y | 14 (51.9) | 12 (54.5) | 11 (57.9) |
| 5-9.9 y | 9 (33.3) | 7 (31.8) | 5 (26.3) |
| ≥10 y | 1 (3.7) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Fear of HIV disclosure, | |||
| Low | 2 (7.4) | 2 (9.1) | 2 (10.5) |
| Medium | 16 (59.3) | 12 (54.5) | 9 (47.4) |
| High | 9 (33.3) | 8 (36.4) | 8 (42.1) |
| Number of piles | 6.0 ± 2.8 | 5.0 ± 2.8 | 4.6 ± 2.8 |
BF, breastfeeding; EBF, exclusive breastfeeding.
Missing data from 1 woman during pregnancy; the mean accounts for this.
Mean ± SD (all such values).
Current EBF practice in pregnancy represents what a woman intended to do and not her current practice.
Missing data from 2 women during pregnancy; the percentage value accounts for this.
FIGURE 1HIV-infected mothers’ cognitive structures about infant feeding messages at pregnancy (as mapped by using MDS, hierarchical cluster, and PROFIT analyses). This figure represents the MDS plot of 27 HIV-infected mothers. The Kruskal stress test indicated a good fit, less than the cutoff of 0.273. Numbers represent individual messages (as described in Table 2) and the circles around the numbers indicate clusters based on hierarchical cluster analysis. From this figure, we can discern that mothers’ perceptions are patterned into 3 main clusters. The distance between numbers (i.e., messages) indicates how closely related they are to one another—the greater the distance, the less similar the message pair, and the smaller the distance, the more similar the message pair. For example, messages 1 and 12 were grouped close together and are more similar to one another than, for example, messages 5 and 15, which are much further apart. The lines in the figure represent the dimensions of the MDS plots based on the PROFIT analysis. The direction of the arrows indicates the increasing value of the dimension. MDS, multidimensional scaling; PROFIT, property fitting.
FIGURE 2HIV-infected mothers’ cognitive structures about infant feeding messages over time (as mapped by using MDS, hierarchical cluster, and PROFIT analyses). This figure represents the MDS plot of 27 HIV-infected breastfeeding mothers at pregnancy, 22 HIV-infected breastfeeding mothers at 0- to 1-mo postpartum, and 19 HIV-infected breastfeeding mothers at 3- to 5-mo postpartum. The Kruskal stress indicated a good fit, at <0.273. Numbers represent individual messages (as described in Table 2) and the circles around the numbers indicate clusters based on hierarchical cluster analysis. The lines in the figure represent the dimensions of the MDS plots based on the PROFIT analysis. The direction of the arrows indicates the increasing value of the dimension. The 3 main clusters of messages were maintained over time. The shading in the figure depicts how the proximity or similarity between messages changed over time (i.e., the spread of the clusters). MDS, multidimensional scaling; PROFIT, property fitting.
Correlations of HIV-infected mothers’ aggregate proximity matrices across pregnancy (visit 1), 0- to 1-mo postpartum (visit 2), and 3- to 5-mo postpartum (visit 3)
| Pearson's |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observed correlation | Average permutation correlation | Correlation ≥ observed | Correlation ≤ observed | |
| Visit 1 vs. Visit 2 | 0.880 | 0.889 | 0.677 | 0.324 |
| Visit 1 vs. Visit 3 | 0.867 | 0.905 | 0.936 | 0.065 |
| Visit 2 vs. Visit 3 | 0.951 | 0.937 | 0.231 | 0.769 |