| Literature DB >> 30719354 |
Chikaodili N Ihudiebube-Splendor1, Chinyelu B Okafor1, Agnes N Anarado1, Nonyelum N Jisieike-Onuigbo2, Anthonia U Chinweuba1, Ada C Nwaneri1, Joyce C Arinze1, Paulina C Chikeme1.
Abstract
Breastfeeding is considered as the most complete nutritional source for infants because breast milk contains the essential carbohydrates, fats, proteins, and immunological factors needed for infants to thrive and resist infection in the formative first year of life. Knowledge of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) among women is essential when promoting optimal breastfeeding practices. This cross-sectional descriptive survey assessed knowledge and intention to practice EBF and its associated factors during pregnancy among primiparous women in selected communities in Enugu State, Nigeria. A total population study that applied inclusion criteria was used to recruit 201 primiparous mothers attending their third trimester antenatal care from selected health facilities in rural and urban communities in Enugu State. A researcher-developed questionnaire was used to collect data on participants' knowledge and intention to practice EBF. Descriptive statistics of frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation were used to summarize categorical and continuous variables while Chi-square and Wald statistic tests predicted demographic data associated with knowledge status and intention to practice EBF of the participants. More than half (58.7%) of primiparous mothers had inadequate knowledge of EBF and only 62.7% had intention to exclusively breastfeed for 4-6 months. The Chi-square test result showed significant difference in the participants' place of residence (p = 0.024), EBF knowledge sources (p = 0.001), and EBF knowledge. The Wald statistic in Logistic regression model indicated the coefficient of age (p = 0.026), educational attainment (p = 0.046), EBF knowledge (p = 0.016), and sources of information about EBF (p = 0.027) to be significant predictors of good intention to practise EBF. Poor EBF knowledge and intention to practice in this population may be improved by combining facility-based and in-house methods of breastfeeding counseling, education, and support especially to intending and expectant mothers. Further studies are needed to be done using the multiparous women as well as assessing the effects of in-house EBF supportive-educative intervention to improve breastfeeding outcomes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30719354 PMCID: PMC6335773 DOI: 10.1155/2019/9832075
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pregnancy ISSN: 2090-2727
Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants (n = 201).
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 16-42 | 26.26±4.37 | ||
|
| 18 | 9.0 | ||
| 21-25 | 68 | 33.8 | ||
| 26-30 | 87 | 43.3 | ||
| > 30 | 28 | 13.9 | ||
|
| ||||
| Christian | 201 | 100.0 | ||
|
| ||||
| Igbo | 199 | 99.0 | ||
| Ibibio | 2 | 1.0 | ||
|
| ||||
| Rural | 53 | 26.4 | ||
| Urban | 148 | 73.6 | ||
|
| ||||
| Married | 197 | 98.0 | ||
| Single | 4 | 2.0 | ||
|
| ||||
| No formal | 3 | 1.5 | ||
| Primary | 8 | 4.0 | ||
| Secondary | 77 | 38.3 | ||
| Tertiary | 113 | 56.2 | ||
|
| ||||
| Working | 166 | 82.6 | ||
| Not working | 35 | 17.4 |
Knowledge of exclusive breastfeeding (n = 201).
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Yes | 173 | 86.1 |
| No | 28 | 13.9 |
|
| ||
| Yes | 134 | 66.7 |
| No | 67 | 33.3 |
|
| ||
| Correct definition of EBF | 128 | 63.7 |
| Incorrect definition of EBF | 73 | 36.3 |
|
| ||
| Within 1 hour after birth | 128 | 63.7 |
| After 24 hours of birth | 63 | 31.3 |
| I don't know | 10 | 5.0 |
|
| ||
| Protection against infection and childhood malnutrition | 134 | 66.7 |
| Contains right amount of nutrients and water | 98 | 48.8 |
| Protection of baby against diarrhoea | 88 | 43.8 |
| Strengthens mother-child bonding | 72 | 35.8 |
| Economical and readily available | 59 | 29.4 |
| Aids in child spacing | 33 | 16.4 |
| Protects the mother against cancers | 26 | 12.9 |
| Others | 32 | 16.4 |
|
| ||
| Good | 67 | 33.3 |
| Poor | 134 | 66.7 |
∗Variables used to assess EBF knowledge.
Sources of information about exclusive breastfeeding (n = 201).
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Midwife during antenatal visit | 106 | 52.7 |
| Friends | 72 | 35.8 |
| Media | 58 | 28.9 |
| Doctor | 51 | 25.4 |
| Mother | 42 | 20.9 |
| Husband | 17 | 8.5 |
| Others (marriage counselor, profession, relative) | 19 | 9.5 |
|
| ||
| Much (knowledge source > 50%) | 32 | 15.9 |
| Few (knowledge source ≤ 50%) | 169 | 84.1 |
Chi-square test of association between demographic variables and EBF knowledge (n = 201).
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 5.541 | 3 | .136 | |||
| ≤ 20 | 3(16.7) | 15(83.3) | 18 | |||
| 21-25 | 20(29.4) | 48(70.6) | 68 | |||
| 26-30 | 36(41.4) | 51(58.6) | 87 | |||
| > 30 | 8(28.6) | 20(71.4) | 28 | |||
|
| - | - | .303 | |||
| Married | 67(34.0) | 130(66.0) | 197 | |||
| Single | 0(0.0) | 4(100.0) | 4 | |||
|
| 5.125 | 1 | .024a | |||
| Rural | 11(20.8) | 42(79.2) | 53 | |||
| Urban | 56(37.8) | 92(62.2) | 148 | |||
|
| 3.656 | 2 | .161 | |||
| ≤ Primary | 3(27.3) | 8(72.7) | 11 | |||
| Secondary | 20(26.0) | 57(74.0) | 77 | |||
| Tertiary | 44(38.9) | 69(61.1) | 113 | |||
|
| 3.390 | 1 | .066 | |||
| Working | 60(36.1) | 106(63.9) | 166 | |||
| Not working | 7(20.0) | 28(80.0) | 35 | |||
|
| 25.441 | 1 | .001a | |||
| Much | 23(71.9) | 9(28.1) | 32 | |||
| Few | 44(26.0) | 125(74.0) | 169 | |||
∗ Fishers Exact Test p-value reported (due to Chi-Square assumption violation).
aSignificant.
Intention to practice exclusive breastfeeding (n = 201).
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Immediately after birth | 160 | 79.6 |
| Later | 2 | 1.0 |
| Undecided | 39 | 19.4 |
|
| ||
| < 6 months | 80 | 39.8 |
| ≥ 6 months | 89 | 44.3 |
| Undecided | 32 | 15.9 |
|
| ||
| Good | 86 | 42.8 |
| Poor | 115 | 57.2 |
Logistic regression model coefficients on intention of exclusive breastfeeding.
| 95% C.I. for EXP(B) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | S.E. | Wald | df | p-value | Exp(B) | Lower | Upper | |
|
| -.094 | .042 | 4.983 | 1 | .026 | .911 | .839 | .989 |
|
| 6.176 | 2 | .046 | |||||
| Secondary | 1.154 | .919 | 1.577 | 1 | .209 | 3.171 | .523 | 19.215 |
| Tertiary | 1.863 | .930 | 4.012 | 1 | .045 | 6.444 | 1.041 | 39.902 |
|
| .360 | .439 | .675 | 1 | .411 | 1.434 | .607 | 3.388 |
|
| .139 | .398 | .122 | 1 | .727 | 1.149 | .527 | 2.507 |
|
| .191 | .079 | 5.857 | 1 | .016 | 1.210 | 1.037 | 1.413 |
|
| .273 | .123 | 4.896 | 1 | .027 | 1.314 | 1.032 | 1.673 |
| Constant | -.647 | 1.370 | .223 | 1 | .637 | .524 | ||
Predictors: age, educational attainment, working status, residence, EBF knowledge & EBF sources of information.
Variable type used: numeric (age, EBF knowledge score, & sources of information); categorical (education, working status, & residence).
Reference category: education (≤ primary); working status (working); residence (rural).