| Literature DB >> 35391530 |
Siti Nurokhmah1, Setyaningrum Rahmawaty1, Dyah Intan Puspitasari1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Understanding the factors influencing mothers' decision to breastfeed their infants is essential to formulate effective breastfeeding interventions. This study explored the determinants of optimal breastfeeding indicators in Indonesia.Entities:
Keywords: Breast feeding; Continued breastfeeding; Demographic and Health Survey; Early initiation of breastfeeding; Exclusive breastfeeding; Indonesia
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35391530 PMCID: PMC8995937 DOI: 10.3961/jpmph.21.448
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Prev Med Public Health ISSN: 1975-8375
Figure 1Sample selection processes.
Figure 2Conceptual framework for optimal breastfeeding practices in Indonesia.
General characteristics of study participants by breastfeeding indicators, Indonesia, 2017
| Characteristics | EIBF (n=6722) | EBF (n=1629) | CBF-1 (n=1174) | CBF-2 (n=1015) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bio-demographic variables | ||||
| Infant’s age, mean±SD (mo) | 11.6±6.7 | 2.8±1.6 | 13.6±1.1 | 21.0±1.1 |
| Sex of the infant | ||||
| Male | 3504 (51.7) | 800 (50.3) | 610 (49.7) | 532 (51.9) |
| Female | 3218 (48.3) | 829 (49.7) | 564 (50.3) | 503 (48.1) |
| Mother’s age at delivery (y) | ||||
| ≤19 | 626 (9.0) | 161 (9.8) | 120 (9.8) | 80 (7.8) |
| 20–34 | 4947 (73.7) | 1221 (75.4) | 860 (73.2) | 763 (73.9) |
| ≥35 | 1149 (17.2) | 247 (14.8) | 193 (17.0) | 192 (18.3) |
| Perceived birth size | ||||
| Small | 884 (11.8) | 204 (11.4) | 159 (11.3) | 146 (12.5) |
| Average | 3620 (57.2) | 888 (56.3) | 616 (58.1) | 556 (59.2) |
| Large | 2218 (31.0) | 537 (32.2) | 399 (30.7) | 333 (28.3) |
| Birth pattern | ||||
| First child | 2161 (33.0) | 504 (31.0) | 398 (34.9) | 330 (33.1) |
| Not first-child, birth interval <2 y | 460 (5.6) | 127 (6.9) | 78 (5.6) | 55 (4.5) |
| Not first-child, birth interval ≥2 y | 4101 (61.4) | 998 (62.1) | 698 (59.4) | 650 (62.4) |
| Place of residence | ||||
| Urban | 3326 (49.1) | 758 (47.1) | 591 (49.5) | 524 (50.2) |
| Rural | 3396 (50.9) | 871 (52.9) | 583 (50.5) | 511 (49.8) |
|
| ||||
| Socioeconomic variables | ||||
| Mother’s education | ||||
| Primary or no formal education | 1557 (23.8) | 382 (24.0) | 284 (25.2) | 227 (22.5) |
| Secondary | 3835 (59.3) | 939 (60.0) | 650 (57.5) | 592 (59.5) |
| College or higher | 1330 (16.9) | 308 (15.9) | 240 (17.2) | 216 (18.0) |
| Mother’s occupation | ||||
| Not working | 3599 (55.9) | 941 (58.8) | 655 (59.4) | 517 (52.4) |
| Agriculture | 550 (6.8) | 111 (5.6) | 97 (7.0) | 85 (8.1) |
| Others[ | 2573 (37.3) | 577 (35.6) | 422 (33.6) | 433 (39.5) |
| Household wealth index | ||||
| Poor | 2689 (33.3) | 686 (34.3) | 469 (34.6) | 400 (32.5) |
| Middle | 2069 (33.3) | 506 (35.0) | 361 (32.1) | 299 (30.7) |
| Rich | 1964 (33.3) | 437 (30.7) | 344 (33.3) | 336 (36.8) |
|
| ||||
| Behavioral characteristics | ||||
| Mother’s smoking status | ||||
| Yes | 127 (1.4) | 23 (1.2) | 20 (0.9) | 24 (2.2) |
| No | 6595 (98.6) | 1606 (98.8) | 1154 (99.1) | 1011 (97.8) |
| Antenatal care visits (times) | ||||
| None | 186 (2.3) | 48 (2.8) | 37 (2.7) | 23 (1.7) |
| 1–3 | 592 (7.0) | 174 (8.9) | 101 (6.4) | 80 (5.8) |
| ≥4 | 5944 (90.6) | 1407 (88.3) | 1036 (90.9) | 932 (92.5) |
| Cesarean delivery | ||||
| Yes | 1230 (18.9) | 288 (18.1) | 206 (18.2) | 194 (19.1) |
| No | 5492 (81.1) | 1341 (81.9) | 968 (81.8) | 841 (80.9) |
| Place of delivery | ||||
| Health facility | 5313 (84.1) | 1311 (85.5) | 925 (84.3) | 814 (83.5) |
| Non-health facility | 1409 (15.9) | 318 (14.5) | 249 (15.7) | 221 (16.5) |
| Skin-to-skin contact | ||||
| Yes | 3744 (60.3) | 876 (59.0) | 670 (61.9) | 581 (60.3) |
| No | 2948 (39.7) | 753 (41.0) | 504 (38.1) | 454 (39.7) |
| Time of first postnatal visit | ||||
| No visit | 2400 (33.3) | 651 (37.3) | 378 (30.0) | 380 (35.0) |
| <24 hr | 573 (6.7) | 128 (6.4) | 100 (6.5) | 94 (8.3) |
| 1–6 day | 1734 (28.5) | 437 (29.5) | 312 (30.0) | 258 (26.4) |
| ≥1 wk | 2015 (31.4) | 413 (26.8) | 384 (33.5) | 303 (30.2) |
EIBF, early initiation of breastfeeding; EBF, exclusive breastfeeding; CBF-1, continued breastfeeding at 1 year; CBF-2, continued breastfeeding at 2 years; SD, standard deviation.
Included those who worked as a professional, technician, manager, clerical, sales, or industrial worker.
Logistic regression results for determinants of optimal breastfeeding practices, Indonesia, 2017[1]
| Variables | EIBF | EBF | CBF-1 | CBF-2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infant’s age (mo)[ | 0.97 (0.83, 1.33) | 0.85 (0.74, 0.99)[ | ||
| 0–1 | - | 1.00 (reference) | - | - |
| 2–3 | - | 0.58 (0.42, 0.79)[ | - | - |
| 4–5 | - | 0.31 (0.22, 0.42)[ | - | - |
|
| ||||
| Perceived birth size | ||||
| Small | 0.71 (0.58, 0.85)[ | - | - | - |
| Average | 1.00 (reference) | - | - | - |
| Large | 0.97 (0.84, 1.13) | - | - | - |
|
| ||||
| Birth pattern | ||||
| First child | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) | - |
| Not first-child, birth interval <2 y | 1.42 (1.09, 1.85)[ | 1.69 (1.01, 2.82)[ | 1.60 (0.76, 3.38) | - |
| Not first-child, birth interval ≥2 y | 1.43 (1.25, 1.63)[ | 1.28 (0.97, 1.70) | 1.87 (1.30, 2.68)[ | - |
|
| ||||
| Mother’s education | ||||
| No education or primary | - | - | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| Secondary | - | - | 0.74 (0.44, 1.25) | 0.68 (0.45, 1.04) |
| College or higher | - | - | 0.70 (0.36, 1.34) | 0.45 (0.26, 0.77)[ |
|
| ||||
| Mother’s occupation | ||||
| Not working | - | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) | - |
| Agriculture | - | 0.81 (0.48, 1.35) | 1.26 (0.54, 2.96) | - |
| Others[ | - | 0.65 (0.49, 0.86)[ | 0.68 (0.47, 0.99)[ | - |
|
| ||||
| Household wealth index | ||||
| Poor | - | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| Middle | - | 0.67 (0.49, 0.91)[ | 0.52 (0.34, 0.78)[ | 1.12 (0.77, 1.65) |
| Rich | - | 0.75 (0.53, 1.06) | 0.34 (0.21, 0.56)[ | 0.75 (0.51, 1.11) |
|
| ||||
| Mother’s smoking status | ||||
| Yes | - | 1.00 (reference) | - | - |
| No | - | 2.97 (1.12, 7.89)[ | - | - |
|
| ||||
| Antenatal care visit (times) | ||||
| None | - | - | 1.00 (reference) | - |
| 1–3 | - | - | 1.34 (0.35, 5.12) | - |
| ≥4 | - | - | 2.67 (0.80, 8.92) | - |
|
| ||||
| Cesarean delivery | ||||
| Yes | 1.00 (reference) | - | 1.00 (reference) | - |
| No | 2.17 (1.83, 2.57)[ | - | 1.76 (1.15, 2.68)[ | - |
|
| ||||
| Place of delivery | ||||
| Health facility | - | - | 1.00 (reference) | - |
| Non-health facility | - | - | 0.73 (0.42, 1.26) | - |
|
| ||||
| Skin-to-skin contact | ||||
| Yes | 2.17 (2.23, 2.89)[ | - | - | - |
| No | 1.00 (reference) | - | - | - |
|
| ||||
| Time of first postnatal visit | ||||
| No visit | - | - | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| <24 hr | - | - | 1.12 (0.52, 2.38) | 1.36 (0.75, 2.47) |
| 1–6 day | - | - | 1.42 (0.90, 2.23) | 1.06 (0.72, 1.56) |
| ≥1 wk | - | - | 1.53 (1.03, 2.28)[ | 1.47 (1.00, 2.15)[ |
Values are presented as adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval).
The final model for EIBF included perceived birth size, birth pattern, type of delivery, and skin-to-skin contact (Archer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit 0.689); The final model for EBF included infant’s age, birth pattern, mother’s occupation, household wealth index, and mother’s smoking status (Archer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit 0.508); The final model for CBF-1 included infant’s age, birth pattern, mother’s education, mother’s occupation, household wealth index, antenatal care visits, type of delivery, place of delivery, and time of the first postnatal visit (Archer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit 0.660); The final model for CBF-2 included infant’s age, mother’s education, household wealth index, and time of the first postnatal visit (Archer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit 0.883).
EIBF, early initiation of breastfeeding; EBF, exclusive breastfeeding; CBF-1, continued breastfeeding at 1 year; CBF-2, continued breastfeeding at 2 years.
The sample sizes of each group are different since models differed by outcome (see Figure 1).
Age was not included as a variable in the analyses of EIBF.
Fitted as a continuous variable in the analyses of CBF-1 (values: 12, 13, 14, and 15 months) and CBF-2 (values: 20, 21, 22, and 23 months) so that the adjusted odds ratio reflects the effect of a 1-month increase in age.
Included those worked as a professional, technician, manager, clerical, sales, and industrial worker.
p<0.05,
p<0.01,
p<0.001.