| Literature DB >> 30466403 |
Hanne Kronborg1, Else Foverskov2, Michael Væth3, Rikke D Maimburg4,5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of parity on breastfeeding duration may be explained by physiological as well as psychosocial factors. The aim in the present study was to investigate the mediating influence of intention and self-efficacy on the association between the breastfeeding duration of the first and the following child.Entities:
Keywords: Follow-up study; Parity, breastfeeding; Self-efficacy and intention; Statistics & numerical data
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30466403 PMCID: PMC6251224 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-018-2086-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Bivariate associations between study variables and breastfeeding duration of the second child, one-way ANOVA and Pearson’s correlation
| Variable | Exclusive breastfeeding duration second child ( | Any breastfeeding duration second child ( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % missing | Mean | SD | % missing | Mean | SD | |||
| Breastfeeding experience (1st child) | ||||||||
| Duration of exclusive breastfeeding | ||||||||
| Less than 2 months | 5.58 | 11.29 | 11.09 | < 0.001 | ||||
| 2–4 months | 15.24 | 7.25 | ||||||
| 4–6 months | 20.55 | 6.89 | ||||||
| More than 6 months | 21.64 | 10.19 | ||||||
| Duration of any breastfeeding | ||||||||
| Less than 4 months | 6.22 | 17.37 | 14.22 | < 0.001 | ||||
| 4–8 months | 29.58 | 11.79 | ||||||
| 8–12 months | 37.70 | 11.55 | ||||||
| More than 12 months | 48.79 | 13.83 | ||||||
| Duration of exclusive breastfeeding (weeks) | ||||||||
| Correlation | 5.58 |
| < 0.001 | |||||
| Duration of any breastfeeding (weeks) | ||||||||
| Correlation | 6.22 |
| < 0.001 | |||||
| Breastfeeding intentions and self-efficacy (2nd child) | ||||||||
| Intended breastfeeding duration (weeks) | ||||||||
| Correlation | 4.88 |
| < 0.001 | 4.63 |
| < 0.001 | ||
| Confidence in ability to breastfeed for 4 months | ||||||||
| Certain | 4.74 | 19.68 | 7.84 | < 0.001 | 4.49 | 37.05 | 14.10 | < 0.001 |
| Neither nor / Uncertain | 10.05 | 9.78 | 20.56 | 16.57 | ||||
| Maternal factors | ||||||||
| Age (years) | ||||||||
| Correlation | 0.00 |
| 0.150 | 0.00 |
| 0.121 | ||
| Educational level | ||||||||
| Low level | 0.00 | 17.08 | 10.00 | 0.163 | 0.00 | 30.77 | 16.56 | 0.012 |
| Mid-level | 17.74 | 9.20 | 33.92 | 15.12 | ||||
| High level | 18.80 | 8.47 | 36.00 | 15.89 | ||||
| Perinatal factors (2nd child) | ||||||||
| Gender | ||||||||
| Boy | 0.00 | 17.63 | 9.68 | 0.175 | 0.00 | 33.59 | 16.10 | 0.232 |
| Girl | 18.55 | 8.31 | 35.03 | 15.33 | ||||
| Gestational age at birth (weeks) | ||||||||
| Correlation | 0.00 |
| 0.007 | 0.00 |
| 0.080 | ||
| Birth weight (kg) | ||||||||
| Correlation | 0.14 |
| 0.790 | 0.14 |
| 0.462 | ||
| Caesarean section | ||||||||
| Yes | 0.00 | 16.21 | 9.72 | 0.009 | 0.00 | 31.48 | 17.71 | 0.030 |
| No | 18.49 | 8.84 | 34.88 | 15.23 | ||||
| Formula supplement, hospital | ||||||||
| Yes | 0.00 | 14.05 | 10.56 | < 0.001 | 0.00 | 30.60 | 18.27 | 0.003 |
| No | 19.02 | 8.38 | 35.16 | 14.97 | ||||
| Breastfeeding support (2nd child) | ||||||||
| Received the necessary support for breastfeeding in the hospital | ||||||||
| Yes | 1.95 | 18.67 | 8.87 | 0.013 | 2.03 | 35.22 | 15.14 | 0.031 |
| Neither nor / No | 16.74 | 9.17 | 32.23 | 17.23 | ||||
| Received the necessary support for breastfeeding from the health visitor | ||||||||
| Yes | 2.51 | 18.43 | 8.90 | 0.195 | 2.60 | 34.71 | 14.99 | 0.337 |
| Neither nor / No | 17.46 | 9.25 | 33.44 | 17.13 | ||||
| Received the necessary support for breastfeeding from the father | ||||||||
| Yes | 0.42 | 18.26 | 8.93 | 0.197 | 0.43 | 34.50 | 15.48 | 0.463 |
| Neither nor / No | 16.39 | 9.90 | 32.67 | 18.57 | ||||
| Intervention programme | ||||||||
| Control group | 0.00 | 17.55 | 9.82 | 0.146 | 0.00 | 35.48 | 14.99 | 0.033 |
| Intervention group | 18.54 | 8.28 | 32.92 | 16.47 | ||||
Associations between breastfeeding duration of the first child and intention to breastfeed the second child from linear regression models (coefficients and 95% confidence intervals) and between breastfeeding duration of the first child and self-efficacy to breastfeed the second child from logistic regression models (odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals)
| Intended breastfeeding duration 2nd child, weeks | Confidence in ability to breastfeed 2nd child for 4 months | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Exclusive breastfeeding 1st child, weeks ( | 0.64*** | [0.54, 0.75] | 1.22*** | [1.18, 1.26] |
| Any breastfeeding 1st child, weeks ( | 0.69*** | [0.64, 0.74] | 1.13*** | [1.11, 1.16] |
***p < 0.001
Adjusted for maternal age and educational level
Associations from linear regression models (coefficients and 95% confidence intervals) between breastfeeding duration in the first and the second child unadjusted and adjusted for intention and self-efficacy
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | 95% CI | Coef. | 95% CI | Coef. | 95% CI | |
| Outcome: Exclusive breastfeeding (weeks), | ||||||
| Duration of exclusive breastfeeding, first child (weeks) | 0.36*** | [0.29, 0.44] | 0.28*** | [0.20, 0.36] | 0.19*** | [0.10, 0.27] |
| Intended breastfeeding duration, second child (weeks) | 0.14*** | [0.09, 0.19] | 0.12*** | [0.07, 0.17] | ||
| Confidence in ability to breastfeed for 4 months, second child | 4.69*** | [2.69, 6.69] | ||||
| Outcome: Any breastfeeding (weeks), | ||||||
| Duration of any breastfeeding, first child (weeks) | 0.65*** | [0.58, 0.73] | 0.53*** | [0.42, 0.63] | 0.48*** | [0.37, 0.59] |
| Intended breastfeeding duration, second child (weeks) | 0.19** | [0.08, 0.29] | 0.19** | [0.08, 0.30] | ||
| Confidence in ability to breastfeed for 4 months, second child | 3.60* | [0.38, 6.82] | ||||
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Adjusted for maternal age, maternal educational level, gender, gestational age, birth weight, caesarean section, formula supplement in hospital, received support in the hospital, received support from the health visitor, received support from the father and intervention
Fig. 1Flow profile and exclusion criteria for selection of population available for analysis