| Literature DB >> 33528102 |
Elizabeth W Kimani-Murage1,2, Judith Kimiywe3, Antonina N Mutoro1,4, Calistus Wilunda1, Frederick Murunga Wekesah1, Peter Muriuki1, Bonaventure M Mwangi1, Betty Mogesi Samburu5,6, Nyovani Janet Madise7, Stephen T McGarvey2, Paula L Griffiths8,9.
Abstract
The baby-friendly hospital initiative (BFHI) promotes exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) in hospitals, but this is not accessible in rural settings where mothers give birth at home, hence the need for a community intervention. We tested the effectiveness of the baby-friendly community initiative (BFCI) on EBF in rural Kenya. This cluster randomized study was conducted in 13 community units in Koibatek sub-county. Pregnant women aged 15-49 years were recruited and followed up until their children were 6 months old. Mothers in the intervention group received standard maternal, infant and young child nutrition counselling, support from trained community health volunteers, health professionals and community and mother support groups, whereas those in the control group received standard counselling only. Data on breastfeeding practices were collected longitudinally. The probability of EBF up to 6 months of age and the restricted mean survival time difference were estimated. A total of 823 (intervention group n = 351) pregnant women were recruited. Compared with children in the control group, children in the intervention group were more likely to exclusively breastfeed for 6 months (79.2% vs. 54.5%; P < .05). Children in the intervention group were also exclusively breastfed for a longer time, mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) 0.62 months (0.38, 0.85; P < .001). The BFCI implemented within the existing health system and including community and mother support groups led to a significant increase in EBF in a rural Kenyan setting. This intervention has the potential to improve EBF rates in similar settings.Entities:
Keywords: Kenya; baby-friendly community initiative; child nutrition; cluster randomized trial; exclusive breastfeeding; infant feeding practices; rural
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33528102 PMCID: PMC8189218 DOI: 10.1111/mcn.13142
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Matern Child Nutr ISSN: 1740-8695 Impact factor: 3.660
FIGURE 1Study flow diagram. Prebirth data collected during the second half of pregnancy. Participant recruitment was on a rolling basis; therefore, recruitment stopped a few months before the study ended. †Censored participants were recruited towards the end of the study and were therefore not followed up because the study ended
Steps in the BFCI programme in Kenya
| Step | Description |
|---|---|
| Step 1 | Have a written MIYCN policy summary statement that is routinely communicated to all health providers, community health volunteers and community |
| Step 2 | Train all healthcare providers and community health volunteers in the knowledge and skills necessary to implement the MIYCN policy |
| Step 3 | Promote optimal maternal nutrition among women and their families |
| Step 4 | Inform all mothers and their families about the benefits of breastfeeding and risks of artificial feeding |
| Step 5 | Support mothers to initiate breastfeeding within the first hour of birth, establish and maintain exclusive breastfeeding for first 6 months |
| Step 6 | Encourage sustained breastfeeding beyond 6 months to 2 years or more alongside timely introduction of appropriate, adequate and safe complementary foods |
| Step 7 | Provide a welcoming and conducive environment for breastfeeding families |
| Step 8 | Promote collaboration between health care staff, maternal, infant and young child nutrition support groups and the local community |
Abbreviations: BFCI, baby friendly community initiative; MIYCN, maternal, infant and young child nutrition.
Services and materials provided to intervention and control groups
| Intervention group | Control group |
|---|---|
| BFCI training in addition to the already attained basic community health modules for CHVs | Training on basic community health modules for CHVs |
| Supportive supervision (scheduled regular visits to assess implementation of BFCI package) + orientation and continuous on job training and mentoring of the health workers and CHVs/CHEWs on BFCI package implementation |
Supportive supervision (usual planned visits by sub‐county health management teams) |
| Formation of mother and community support groups, which met regularly | |
|
Distribution of MIYCN educational materials (usual care) |
Distribution of MIYCN educational Materials (usual care) |
Abbreviations: BFCI, baby friendly community initiative; CHEWs, community health extension workers; CHVs, community health volunteers; MIYCN, maternal, infant and young child nutrition.
Baseline socio‐demographic characteristics (N = 823)
| Maternal characteristics | Control ( | Intervention ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % | |
| Age in years | ||||
| 14–20 | 82 | 17.3 | 42 | 12.0 |
| 21–24 | 123 | 26.0 | 83 | 23.7 |
| ≥25 | 268 | 56.7 | 225 | 64.3 |
| Marital status | ||||
| Married | 358 | 75.7 | 285 | 81.4 |
| Not married | 115 | 24.3 | 65 | 18.6 |
| Education | ||||
| Less than primary | 77 | 16.3 | 53 | 15.1 |
| Primary | 224 | 47.4 | 115 | 32.9 |
| Post primary | 172 | 36.4 | 182 | 52.0 |
| Religion | ||||
| Christian | 445 | 94.1 | 345 | 98.6 |
| Non‐Christian | 28 | 5.9 | 5 | 1.4 |
| Occupation | ||||
| Formal employment | 101 | 21.4 | 67 | 19.1 |
| Informal employment | 130 | 27.5 | 95 | 27.1 |
| Unemployed | 242 | 51.2 | 188 | 53.7 |
| Parity | ||||
| 0 | 196 | 41.4 | 119 | 34.0 |
| 1 | 120 | 25.4 | 81 | 23.1 |
| >1 | 157 | 33.2 | 150 | 42.9 |
| Household food security | ||||
| Secure | 322 | 68.1 | 242 | 69.1 |
| Moderate | 102 | 21.6 | 82 | 23.4 |
| Severe | 49 | 10.4 | 26 | 7.4 |
Note: Adjusted for clustering.
The proportion of children exclusively breastfed and the odds ratios for exclusive breastfeeding stratified by child's age
| Age (months) | Exclusively breastfed | Control | Intervention | Odds ratio [95% CI] | Intracluster coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete‐case analysis | ||||||
| 0–2 ( | No | 50 (18.4) | 16 (7.6) | 1 | ||
| Yes | 222 (81.6) | 196 (92.4) | 2.76 [0.81, 4.71] | 0.205 | ||
| 3–6 ( | No | 57 (25.8) | 31 (15.1) | 1 | ||
| Yes | 164 (74.2) | 174 (84.9) | 1.95 [0.93, 2.97] | 0.339 | ||
| 0–6 ( | No | 67 (38.1) | 26 (16.3) | 1 | ||
| Yes | 109 (61.9) | 134 (83.7) | 3.17 [1.42, 4.92] | 0.279 | ||
| Analysis after imputation ( | ||||||
| 0–2 | No | 59 (18.5) | 28 (10.8) | 1 | ||
| Yes | 260 (81.5) | 232 (89.2) | 1.90 [0.86, 2.90] | 0.108 | ||
| 3–6 | No | 105 (32.9) | 40 (15.4) | 1 | ||
| Yes | 214 (67.1) | 220 (84.6) | 2.70 [1.54, 3.85] | 0.205 | ||
| 0–6 | No | 145 (45.5) | 54 (20.8) | 1 | ||
| Yes | 174 (54.5) | 206 (79.2) | 2.95 [1.79, 4.10] | 0.114 | ||
Note: The 95% CIs are based on bootstrapped standard errors to account for few clusters.
FIGURE 2Kaplan–Meier survival estimates for stopping exclusive breastfeeding