| Literature DB >> 32215207 |
Gabriela Buccini1, Kassandra L Harding1, Isabel Ferré Eguiluz2, Cara B Safon1,3, Amber Hromi-Fielder1, Teresita González de Cosío2, Rafael Pérez-Escamilla1.
Abstract
Little information exists on how to garner political commitment to strengthen large-scale breastfeeding policies and programmes by targeting key decision makers. The present study aims to map and describe the influence of stakeholders involved in breastfeeding policy and programming and identify opportunities to strengthen the breastfeeding-friendly environment in Mexico. A total of nine key informants from seventeen stakeholder organisations were selected based on their in-depth knowledge of the breastfeeding environment in Mexico and were individually interviewed using Net-Map methodology. This participatory interview technique combines stakeholder mapping, social network analysis and influence mapping to identify relevant stakeholders. Participants identified a total of fifty-five stakeholders shaping breastfeeding programmes and policies through four domains of influence: commands (n 32 stakeholders), dissemination (n 40), funding (n 35) and technical assistance (n 37). The Federal Ministry of Health emerged as the most influential stakeholder of breastfeeding policy and programming decisions in Mexico among all domains of influence. The Ministry of Finance and Public Credit as well as the National Institute of Public Health were identified as additional key stakeholders providing funding and technical assistance to the Federal Ministry of Health, respectively. Engaging identified key stakeholders can generate a multisectoral commitment to breastfeeding and strengthen the breastfeeding-friendly environment in Mexico.Entities:
Keywords: BBF, Becoming Breastfeeding Friendly; BMSC, breastmilk substitute companies; Breastfeeding; ConMéxico, Mexican Council of the Consumer Products Industry; EBF, exclusive breastfeeding; Implementation science; NGO, non-government organisation; Nutrition policy; PAHO, Pan-American Health Organization; SHCP, Ministry of Finance and Public Credit; SSAF, Federal Ministry of Health; Stakeholder participation
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32215207 PMCID: PMC7082715 DOI: 10.1017/jns.2020.4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nutr Sci ISSN: 2048-6790
Key terms and domains of influence*
| Definition | |
|---|---|
| Key term | |
| Stakeholder | Organisations or individuals with interest in the issues being addressed, whether they are actively or potentially involved in affecting breastfeeding outcomes or passively affecting them |
| Influence | Level of influence that an organisation or individual has to make a change in the breastfeeding governance system. The ‘extent of influence’ refers to the power a stakeholder has in translating a policy recommendation into action, i.e. implementing or scaling it up |
| Breastfeeding governance system | The political decision-making process involved in the translation of policy recommendations into action |
| Breastfeeding friendly environment | An environment – a country, a state, a workplace, etc. – where breastfeeding is protected, promoted and supported to enable mothers to breastfeed as long as they plan/wish |
| Domains of influence | |
| Command | Stakeholders linked by giving or receiving commands (for example, one stakeholder tells the other that it must do something) |
| Funding | Stakeholders linked by giving or receiving money or financial incentives (for example, one stakeholder funds projects within another) |
| Technical assistance | Stakeholders linked by giving or receiving technical assistance (for example, one stakeholder offering advice to another) |
| Dissemination | Stakeholders linked by the dissemination of information (for example, one or both stakeholders spread information about what one or both have developed) |
Adapted from the International Food and Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) policy study(.
Full list of stakeholders' organisations represented in the 2016 Mexico Becoming Breastfeeding Friendly (BBF) Policy Recommendation Dissemination event
| Government agencies |
|
Federal Ministry of Health |
|
Chamber of Deputies |
|
National Center for the Health of Children and Adolescents |
|
National Center for Gender Equity and Reproductive Health |
|
National Commission for Social Protection in Health |
|
Mexican Social Security Institute |
|
National Institute of Public Health Ministry of Labour and Social Security |
|
Undersecretary of Prevention and Promotion of Health |
|
National System for the Protection of Children and Adolescents |
| International organisations |
|
United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) |
|
International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) |
|
Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) |
| Academic organisations |
|
Universidad Iberoamericana |
|
Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico |
| Civil society represented by non-government organisations |
|
Food Orientation Center |
|
Un Kilo de Ayuda |
|
Association of Lactation Consultants in Mexico (ACCLAM) |
Participant characteristics, breastfeeding social networks in Mexico
| Stakeholder group | Number of participants | Organisations represented |
|---|---|---|
| Government | 5 | SIPINNA, CENSIA, INSP, STPS, CNEGSR |
| Non-government organisations | 3 | Un Kilo de Ayuda, Lactation Consultant (IBCLC) |
| Academia | 1 | ITAM |
| International organisations | 1 | UNICEF |
SIPINNA, National System for the Protection of Children and Adolescents; CENSIA, National Center of Children and Adolescents' Health; INSP, National Institute of Public Health; STPS, Ministry of Labor and Social Security; CNEGSR, National Center for Gender Equity and Reproductive Health; IBCLC, International Board-Certified Lactation Consultant; ITAM, Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico; UNICEF, United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund.
Fig. 1.Overview of the stepwise process to apply the Net-Map activity to analyse breastfeeding stakeholders in Mexico. Adapted from Schiffer & Waale(.
Key social network terms and statistics*
| Statistics | Shows | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Size reflects the distribution of stakeholder groups | ||
| Number of nodes | Size of the network | Number of stakeholders in the network |
| Number of links | How ‘busy’ the network is in total | Number of connections between stakeholders in the network (in total) |
| Number of unique links | How ‘busy’ the network is, eliminating relationships that are duplicated | Number of connections between individuals in the network, with duplicates removed |
| Cohesion reflects the interconnectedness of stakeholders in a network | ||
| Distance | Proximity of nodes to one another | Average number of links between nodes. Where distances are great, it may take a long time for information to diffuse across a population; moreover, stakeholders who are closer to more others may be able to exert more power than those who are more distant |
| Density | The extent to which nodes are interconnected | The proportion of all links that are actually present out of all possible links. Density is a ratio that can range from 0 to 1; the closer to 1 the density is, the more interconnected the network is |
| Centrality reflects the prominent stakeholders within a network | ||
| Mean degrees | How central (on average) nodes in the network are | Average number of links that pass through the nodes |
| In-degree | Quantifies the inputs, or directions, received by a stakeholder from the other stakeholders in the network | Measures the number of links directed at a stakeholder, representing the received input from a particular network |
| Out-degree | Quantifies the links of a stakeholder provided to other stakeholders in the network | Measures the number of links from a stakeholder directed to other stakeholders in the network, representing the input provided to a particular network |
| Betweenness | Represents the control a stakeholder has over the flow of inputs across a network | Measures the number of times a stakeholder connects subgroups within a network |
Adapted from Home Office (2016)(; Hawe et al. (2004)(.
Fig. 2.Percentage of breastfeeding stakeholders in Mexico representing the number of citations across the nine interviews. Numbers reflect the number of times a stakeholder was cited across the nine interviews, ranging from 1 to 9.
Fig. 3.Average weighted influence for all breastfeeding stakeholders in Mexico; ranked lowest to highest.
Fig. 4.Maps of Mexico's breastfeeding policy stakeholders sized by sum reported influence, colour-coded by stakeholder groups and stratified by domains of influence: commands links (a), dissemination links (b), funding links (c) and technical assistance (d).