| Literature DB >> 35603241 |
Swathi Ganesan1, Jaippreetha Jayaraj1, Sangeetha Geminiganesan2, Mahalakshmi Rajan3.
Abstract
Introduction: Nutrition plays an integral part in growth and development of a child. Age-appropriate feeding is known to improve the child's well-being and reduce the risk of specific diseases. The present study aimed to assess the awareness of parents regarding breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices. Methodology: This health-based prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital enrolling 95 parents with children in the age group 1-2 years. The data was analyzed using SPSS version 26 and Microsoft excel.Entities:
Keywords: Breastfeeding; Colostrum; Complementary feeding; Malnutrition
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35603241 PMCID: PMC9104673 DOI: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2021.62.4.2287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Prev Med Hyg ISSN: 1121-2233
Socio-demographic characteristics of participants of the study (N = 95).
| Variable | Frequency (N = 95) | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
|
| 17.903 ± 3.100 | |
|
| ||
| Female | 55 | 57.89% |
| Male | 40 | 42.12% |
|
| ||
| Low birth weight (< 2.5 kg) | 23 | 24.21% |
| Normal weight (≥2.5 kg) | 72 | 75.78% |
|
| ||
| Preterm | 16 | 16.84% |
| Term | 79 | 83.16% |
|
| ||
| Yes | 13 | 13.68% |
| No | 82 | 86.32% |
|
| ||
| Yes | 46 | 48.42% |
| No | 54 | 51.58% |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Urban | 68 | 71.58% |
| Rural | 32 | 28.42% |
|
| 27.88421 ± 4.187 | |
|
| ||
| Primary | 4 | 4.21% |
| Secondary | 26 | 27.36% |
| Graduate | 65 | 68.42% |
|
| ||
| Housewife | 84 | 88.42% |
| Employed | 11 | 11.58% |
|
| 33.094 ± 4.976 | |
|
| ||
| Primary | 14 | 14.74% |
| Secondary | 19 | 20% |
| Graduate | 62 | 65.26% |
|
| ||
| Unskilled | 4 | 4.21% |
| Skilled | 27 | 28.42% |
| Professional | 64 | 67.37% |
|
| ||
| Nuclear | 47 | 49.47% |
| Joint | 48 | 50.53% |
|
| ||
| Upper | 20 | 21.05% |
| Upper-middle | 45 | 47.37% |
| Lower-middle | 22 | 23.16% |
| Upper-lower | 8 | 8.42% |
| Lower-lower | 0 | 0% |
Breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices of participants (N = 95).
| Variable | Frequency (N = 95) | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Yes | 64 | 67.37% |
| No | 31 | 32.63% |
|
| ||
| Yes | 70 | 73.68% |
| No | 25 | 26.32% |
|
| ||
| Yes | 70 | 73.68% |
| No | 25 | 26.32% |
|
| ||
| Yes | 86 | 90.53% |
| No | 9 | 9.47% |
|
| ||
| Yes | 29 | 30.53% |
| No | 66 | 69.47% |
|
| ||
| Yes | 89 | 93.68% |
| No | 6 | 6.32% |
|
| ||
| Yes | 77 | 81.05% |
| No | 18 | 18.95% |
|
| ||
| Yes | 11 | 11.58% |
| No | 84 | 88.42% |
|
| ||
| Yes | 26 | 27.37% |
| No | 69 | 72.63% |
|
| ||
| Yes | 68 | 71.58% |
| No | 27 | 28.42% |
Reasons for stopping breastfeeding.
| Reasons for stopping breastfeeding | Response (N = 51) |
|---|---|
| Trouble in milk flow to start | 60.78% (31) |
| Breastfeeding was painful | 9.80% (5) |
| Mother was sick | 5.88% (3) |
| Mother had to leave the baby for long hours | 13.73% (7) |
| Mother wanted to go back to her usual diet | 0% (0) |
| Mother did not want to breastfeed in public | 0% (0) |
| Mother became pregnant | 21.57% (11) |
Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression for the predictors associated with exclusive breastfeeding (N = 95).
| Population characteristics | Exclusively breastfed (N = 70) | Not exclusively breastfed (N = 25) | Crude odds ratio | Adjusted odds ratio | 95% CI | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| < 18 months | 14 (93.33%) | 1 (6.67%) | 1.022 | 0.891 | 0.293 – 3.559 |
|
| ≥18 months | 56 (70%) | 24 (30%) | |||||
|
| Female | 27 (67.50%) | 13 (32.50%) | 0.889 | 1.013 | 0.351 – 2.252 | 0.243 |
| Male | 43 (78.18%) | 12 (21.82%) | |||||
|
| Urban | 51 (75%) | 17 (25%) | 1.833 | 2.360 | 0.609 – 5.520 | 0.644 |
| Rural | 19 (70.37%) | 8 (29.63%) | |||||
|
| Yes | 33 (71.74%) | 13 (28.26%) | 0.958 | 0.414 | 0.346 – 2.656 | 0.677 |
| No | 37 (75.51%) | 12 (24.49%) | |||||
|
| Normal | 52 (75.36%) | 17 (24.64%) | 0.630 | 1.158 | 0.249 – 1.592 | 0.366 |
| Underweight | 18 (69.23%) | 8 (30.77%) | |||||
|
| < 30 years | 50 (78.13%) | 14 (21.88%) | 4.889 | 4.471 | 1.336 – 17.896 | 0.158 |
| ≥30 years | 20 (64.52%) | 11 (35.48%) | |||||
|
| Primary | 3 (75%) | 1 (25%) | 0.845 | 1.501 | 0.364 – 1.960 | 0.528 |
| Secondary | 17 (65.38%) | 9 (34.62%) | |||||
| Graduate | 50 (76.92%) | 15 (23.08%) | |||||
|
| Housewife | 62 (75.61%) | 20 (24.39%) | 0.516 | 0.452 | 0.152 – 1.758 | 0.284 |
| Employed | 8 (61.54%) | 5 (38.46%) | |||||
|
| < 35 years | 48 (76.19%) | 15 (23.81%) | 3.5 | 1.359 | 1.085 – 11.292 | 0.436 |
| ≥35 years | 22 (68.75%) | 10 (31.25%) | |||||
|
| Primary | 9 (64.29%) | 5 (35.71%) | 0.611 | 0.542 | 0.300 – 1.246 | 0.508 |
| Secondary | 13 (68.42%) | 6 (31.58%) | |||||
| Graduate | 48 (77.42%) | 14 (22.58%) | |||||
|
| Unskilled | 2 (50%) | 2 (50%) | 0.664 | 1.470 | 0.274 – 1.607 | 0.287 |
| Skilled | 18 (66.67%) | 9 (33.33%) | |||||
| Professional | 50 (78.13%) | 14 (21.88%) | |||||
|
| Nuclear | 32 (68.09%) | 15 (31.91%) | 0.473 | 0.380 | 0.185 – 1.215 | 0.220 |
| Joint | 38 (79.17%) | 10 (20.83%) | |||||
|
| Upper | 12 (60%) | 8 (40%) | 1.562 | 1.596 | 0..882 – 2.766 | 0.588 |
| Upper-middle | 21 (46.67%) | 24 (53.33%) | |||||
| Lower-middle | 6 (27.27%) | 16 (72.73%) | |||||
| Upper-lower | 4 (50%) | 4 (50%) | |||||
| Lower-lower | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |||||
Reasons for starting complementary feeds.
| Reasons for starting complementary feeds | Response |
|---|---|
| Baby started consuming too much milk | 16.48% (16) |
| Baby was hungry most of the time | 38.94% (37) |
| Mother did not have enough milk | 37.89% (36) |
| Baby not gaining weight | 23.16% (22) |
| Mother wanted to feed something in addition to milk | 63.16% (60) |
| Baby sleeps well at night | 44.21% (42) |
| Baby was old enough to take solid food | 72.63% (69) |
| Doctor recommended to give | 78.95% (75) |
| Family members asked to give | 72.63% (69) |
Fig. 1.Feeding characteristics of the children (N = 95).
Fig. 2.Quantity of complementary feeds among the children (N = 95).
Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression for the predictors associated with calorie consumption (N = 95).
| Population characteristics | Sufficient calories (N = 43) | Deficient calories (N = 52) | Crude odds ratio | Adjusted odds ratio | 95% Confidence Interval | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| < 18 months | 5 (33.33%) | 10 (66.67%) | 0.553 | 0.445 | 0.173-1.762 | 0.312 |
| ≥18 months | 38 (47.50%) | 42 (52.50%) | |||||
|
| Female | 16 (40%) | 24 (60%) | 0.691 | 0.730 | 0.303-1.577 | 0.379 |
| Male | 27 (49.09%) | 28 (50.91%) | |||||
|
| Urban | 30 (44.12%) | 38 (55.88%) | 0.850 | 0.643 | 0.348-2.078 | 0.722 |
| Rural | 13 (48.15%) | 14 (51.85%) | |||||
|
| Normal | 32 (46.38%) | 37 (53.62%) | 1.179 | 1.333 | 0.474-2.932 | 0.722 |
| Malnourished | 11 (42.31%) | 15 (57.69%) | |||||
|
| Yes | 21 (45.65%) | 25 (54.35%) | 1.031 | 0.944 | 0.459-2.314 | 0.941 |
| No | 22 (44.90%) | 27 (55.10%) | |||||
|
| < 30 years | 24 (37.50%) | 40 (62.50%) | 0.379 | 0.389 | 0.157-0.916 |
|
| ≥30 years | 19 (61.29%) | 12 (38.71%) | |||||
|
| Primary | 1 (25%) | 3 (75%) | 0.827 | 1.735 | 0.399-1.715 | 0.707 |
| Secondary | 12 (46.15%) | 14 (53.85%) | |||||
| Graduate | 30 (46.15%) | 35 (53.85%) | |||||
|
| Housewife | 34 (41.46%) | 48 (58.54%) | 0.315 | 0.298 | 0.090-1.107 |
|
| Employed | 9 (69.23%) | 4 (30.77%) | |||||
|
| < 35 years | 25 (39.68%) | 38 (60.32%) | 0.512 | 0.710 | 0.216-1.211 | 0.125 |
| ≥35 years | 18 (56.25%) | 14 (43.75%) | |||||
|
| Primary | 6 (42.86%) | 8 (57.14%) | 0.771 | 1.115 | 0.440-1.350 | 0.362 |
| Secondary | 6 (31.58%) | 13 (68.42%) | |||||
| Graduate | 31 (50%) | 31 (50%) | |||||
|
| Unskilled | 2 (50%) | 2 (50%) | 0.676 | 0.619 | 0.322-1.420 | 0.338 |
| Skilled | 9 (33.33%) | 18 (66.67%) | |||||
| Professional | 32 (50%) | 32 (50%) | |||||
|
| Nuclear | 25 (53.19%) | 22 (46.81%) | 1.894 | 1.454 | 0.836-4.293 | 0.124 |
| Joint | 18 (37.50%) | 30 (62.50%) | |||||
|
| Upper | 12 (60%) | 8 (40%) | 1.434 | 1.356 | 0.882-2.332 | 0.192 |
| Upper-middle | 21 (46.67%) | 24 (53.33%) | |||||
| Lower-middle | 6 (27.27%) | 16 (72.73%) | |||||
| Upper-lower | 4 (50%) | 4 (50%) | |||||
| Lower-lower | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |||||
Fig. 3.Relationship between duration of breastfeeding and nourishment of the child (N = 95).
Fig. 4.Relationship between breastfeeding and nutritional status of the child (N = 95).
Fig. 5.Consumption of different food groups among the children (N = 95).
Fig. 6.Relationship between socio-economic class of the family and complementary feeding practice of the child (N = 95).