| Literature DB >> 33127637 |
Fiona E McLardie-Hore1,2, Helen L McLachlan2,3, Touran Shafiei2, Della A Forster4,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Ringing Up about Breastfeeding earlY (RUBY) randomised controlled trial (RCT) of proactive telephone-based peer support for breastfeeding found that infants of women allocated to the intervention were more likely to be receiving breast milk at 6 months of age than those receiving usual care. This study explores women's experiences of receiving the RUBY peer support intervention.Entities:
Keywords: epidemiology; maternal medicine; public health
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33127637 PMCID: PMC7604849 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040412
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Participant characteristics at recruitment to RUBY RCT
| Characteristics | Respondents | Non-respondents | P value |
| Maternal age at recruitment to RCT (years) mean (SD) | 31.9 (4.6 (SD)) | 29.2 (5.4 (SD)) | <0.001 |
*Includes 19 participants who returned survey but did not receive ongoing calls.
RCT, randomised controlled trial; RUBY, ringing up about breastfeeding early.
Frequency and duration of contact with peer volunteer
| n (%) | |
| On average how often did you receive calls from your volunteer in the first 3 months? n=341 | |
| Twice weekly | 22 (6.5) |
| Weekly | 192 (56.3) |
| 2nd weekly | 53 (15.5) |
| Monthly | 5 (1.5) |
| It varied | 69 (20.3) |
| On average how often did you receive calls from your volunteer after the first 3 months? n=331 | |
| Twice weekly | 8 (2.5) |
| Weekly | 38 (11.6) |
| 2nd weekly | 90 (27.5) |
| Monthly | 87 (26.6) |
| It varied | 108 (32.5) |
| How did you feel about the frequency of calls you received? n=332 | |
| About right | 283 (85.3) |
| Too often | 33 (9.9) |
| Not often enough (I would have liked more calls) | 16 (4.8) |
| On average how long did these calls last? n=332 | |
| 0–5 min | 43 (13.0) |
| 6–10 min | 105 (31.6) |
| 11–20 min | 108 (32.5) |
| Longer than 20 min | 44 (13.3) |
| It varied | 32 (9.6) |
| When did the calls from your volunteer stop (in weeks)? n=317 | |
| 1 | 2 (0.6) |
| 2–4 | 27 (8.5) |
| 5–8 | 28 (8.8) |
| 9–12 weeks | 15 (4.7) |
| 13–16 weeks | 35 (11.0) |
| 17–20 weeks | 30 (9.5) |
| 21–25 weeks | 35 (11.0) |
| 26 | 100 (31.5) |
| Greater than 26 weeks | 45 (14.2) |
| If the calls stopped who decided to stop the calls? n=295 | |
| We agreed together | 111 (37.6) |
| Volunteer decided | 64 (21.7) |
| I decided | 57 (19.3) |
| Do not remember | 48 (16.3) |
| Other | 15 (5.1) |
| Did you ever call the volunteer yourself? n=335 | |
| Yes | 137 (40.9) |
| Did you ever contact the volunteer yourself in another way? n=341 | |
| Yes | 215 (63.0) |
| Other type of contact n=215 | |
| Text message (short message service) | 201 (93.4) |
| 12 (5.6) | |
| Other (eg, Facebook, WhatsApp, WeChat, Post) | 12 (5.6) |
| If you contacted your volunteer, can you recall the number of times? n=188 | |
| 1 | 38 (20.4) |
| 2 | 54 (29.0) |
| 3 | 30 (16.1) |
| 4 | 8 (4.3) |
| 5 | 30 (16.1) |
| 6–20 | 26 (14.1) |
Topics discussed with peer volunteer
| What things did you talk about with your peer volunteer? n=341 | n (%) |
| Milk supply | 259 (76.0) |
| Baby behaviour | 251 (73.6) |
| Baby attaching to the breast | 246 (72.1) |
| Reassured me | 245 (71.9) |
| Nipple or breast pain | 211 (61.9) |
| Advised me where to get help | 207 (60.7) |
| Lack of sleep | 195 (57.2) |
| How often to feed my baby | 190 (55.7) |
| Baby sleep/wake patterns | 187 (54.8) |
| Gave me emotional support | 185 (54.3) |
| Settling my baby | 161 (47.2) |
| Baby care | 161 (47.2) |
| My emotional well-being | 145 (42.5) |
| Support from my family | 124 (36.4) |
| Other | 47 (13.8) |
Peer Support Evaluation Inventory
| Maternal perceptions of supportive interactions | |||
| Domain | Subscale item | Agree to strongly agree | Domain mean |
| n (%) | |||
| Emotional support | Listened to me talk about my feelings or concerns (n=152) | 146 (96.0) | 92.8% |
| Helped me feel that I was not alone in my situation (n=151) | 143 (94.7) | ||
| Expressed interest and concern about how I was doing (n=152) | 144 (94.7) | ||
| Told me that help was available when I needed it (n=152) | 138 (90.8) | ||
| Accepted me for who I was (n=152) | 133 (87.5) | ||
| Informational support | Provided me with practical information (n=152) | 142 (93.4) | 86.5% |
| Gave trustworthy advice (n=152) | 139 (91.4) | ||
| Assisted me to solve my problems or concerns (n=151) | 134 (88.7) | ||
| Told me what was usual for my current situation (n=151) | 129 (85.4) | ||
| Suggested other ways of doing things (n=150) | 126 (84.0) | ||
| Told me what to expect in a certain situation (n=152) | 115 (75.6) | ||
| Appraisal support | Helped me feel that what I was going through was ‘normal’ (n=151) | 144 (95.4) | 86.1% |
| Told me that I did something well (n=152) | 134 (88.2) | ||
| Gave me feedback on how I was doing (n=149) | 130 (87.2) | ||
| Expressed admiration for a personal quality of mine (n=151) | 111 (73.5) | ||
| General satisfaction | Overall, I am satisfied with my peer support experience (n=151) | 140 (92.7) | 82.5% |
| I would recommend this type of support to a friend (n=152) | 135 (88.8) | ||
| Perceived quality | My peer was respectful to me (n=151) | 145 (96.0) | 82.3% |
| I liked my peer (n=152) | 141 (92.8) | ||
| My peer provided the assistance I needed (n=152) | 127 (83.6) | ||
| My peer met my expectations (n=152) | 123 (80.9) | ||
| There is nothing I would have liked done differently (n=148) | 109 (73.6) | ||
| For my situation one-to-one support was better than group support (n=149) | 100 (67.1) | ||
| Convenience | I liked the support over the telephone (n=152) | 129 (84.3) | 80.3% |
| Receiving support from my peer was convenient for me (n=151) | 122 (80.8) | ||
| I had very few problems with the support I received (n=149) | 112 (75.2) | ||
| Access | My peer telephoned when planned (n=149) | 127 (85.2) | 84.1% |
| I was able to talk to my peer when I needed to (n=149) | 126 (84.6) | ||
| I had enough contact with my peer (n=149) | 123 (82.6) | ||
*Means calculated for the scale ‘perceptions of relationship qualities’ should be viewed in the context that some domains contained items which could be interpreted differently (positively or negatively) for example, ‘I depended on my peer’ maybe be viewed as positive by some, but not others, thus an overall mean may not clearly indicate participant perceptions, thus we considered it inappropriate to reverse score these items.