Breastfeeding outcomes in late preterm infants: A multi-centre prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe (1) infant feeding practices during initial hospitalisation and up to 6 months corrected age (CA) in infants born late preterm with mothers intending to breastfeed, (2) the impact of early feeding practices on hospital length of stay and (3) maternal and infant factors associated with duration of breastfeeding.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of infants born at 34+0 to 36+6 weeks gestational age during 2018-2020. Families were followed up until the infant reached 6 months of age (corrected for prematurity). Feeding practices during the birth hospitalisation, length of initial hospital stay, and the prevalence of exclusive or any breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months CA were examined. Associations between maternal and infant characteristics and breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months CA were assessed using multivariable logistic regression models.
RESULTS: 270 infants were enrolled, of these, 30% were multiple births. Overall, 78% of infants received only breastmilk as their first feed, and 83% received formula during the hospitalisation. Seventy-four per cent of infants were exclusively breastfed at discharge, 41% at 6 weeks CA, 35% at 3 months CA, and 29% at 6 months CA. The corresponding combined exclusive and partial breastfeeding rates (any breastfeeding) were 72%, 64%, and 53% of babies at 6 weeks CA, 3 months CA, and 6 months CA, respectively. The mean duration of hospitalisation was 2.9 days longer (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31, 5.43 days) in infants who received any formula compared with those receiving only breastmilk (adjusted for GA, maternal age, multiple birth, site, and neonatal intensive care unit admission). In multivariable models, receipt of formula as the first milk feed was associated with a reduction in exclusive breastfeeding at 6 weeks CA (odds ratio = 0.22; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.53) and intention to breastfeed >6 months with an increase (odds ratio = 4.98; 95% CI 2.39 to 10.40). Intention to breastfeed >6 months remained an important predictor of exclusive breastfeeding at 3 and 6 months CA.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that long-term exclusive breastfeeding rates were low in a cohort of women intending to provide breastmilk to their late preterm infants, with approximately half providing any breastmilk at 6 months CA. Formula as the first milk feed and intention to breastfeed >6 months were significant predictors of breastfeeding duration. Improving breastfeeding outcomes may require strategies to support early lactation and a better understanding of the ongoing support needs of this population.

Introduction

Every year around 15 million infants are born preterm [1]. Late preterm infants born between 34+0 to 36+6 weeks gestation make up approximately 7% of the infant population and about 70–75% of all preterm births [2, 3]. Late preterm infants are often considered functionally full term because of their size and because they are generally clinically stable. They are, however, born physiologically and metabolically immature. Consequently, late preterm infants have higher morbidity rates, prolonged hospitalisation and re-hospitalisation, and healthcare costs than term infants [4].

Breastmilk is the optimal nutrition to support overall growth and development, gut maturation and immune protection. Complications relating to poor feeding are major contributors to the health burden in this population and one of the leading causes of extended hospital stay and readmission [5]. Yet, there is very little evidence to guide nutritional management of this group, as research in neonatal nutrition has primarily focussed on improving outcomes in very preterm infants born less than 32 weeks gestation [6]. Notably, contemporary evidence about breastfeeding outcomes for infants born late preterm is lacking. The limited available evidence suggests breastfeeding rates in the late preterm population are lower than in infants born at term [7, 8]. A key limitation of existing studies is the focus on breastfeeding status at discharge from the hospital rather than longer-term breastfeeding outcomes [9]. Further, in term infants, early exposure to formula may interfere with successful long-term breastfeeding [10] but this has not been fully explored in late preterm infants. Understanding the progression of breastfeeding in this population beyond discharge, the influence of early feeding practices on hospital stay, and the key factors associated with breastfeeding duration will help identify the areas where targeted support may help mothers sustain breastfeeding.

Our study aimed to describe feeding practices in infants born late preterm, the maternal and infant factors associated with longer duration of breastfeeding and the impact of early formula feeding on hospital length of stay.

Methods

Study design

Prospective cohort study of feeding patterns to 6 months corrected age of infants born at 34+0 to 36+6 weeks gestation (late-preterm).

Setting

Research personnel identified late-preterm infants during their birth admission in the neonatal unit or postnatal ward of the Women’s and Children’s Hospital (WCH), Flinders Medical Centre (FMC) and Lyell McEwin Hospital (LMH). All centres are in metropolitan South Australia and represent the three major perinatal centres in the state. Women were recruited between 8th August 2018 and 18th September 2019 and data collection was finalised on 24th April 2020.

Participants

Mothers of infants born 34+0 to 36+6 weeks gestation, intending to breastfeed and residing in South Australia, were eligible for inclusion up to 42 weeks post-menstrual age (PMA). Infants with a lethal congenital anomaly and/or not expected to survive to discharge home were excluded, as were women choosing to formula feeding their babies exclusively at the time of screening. Women provided written or electronic informed consent to participate.

Data collection

At enrolment, data were collected on infants (gestational age, plurality, sex, weight, length and head circumference at birth, short-term clinical outcomes), mothers (age, born in Australia or overseas, whether they identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, postcode, type of delivery), and maternal feeding intent before to delivery and at enrolment (breastfeeding, formula, mixed feeding, or undecided). Data were collected from infant medical records on date and type of first enteral feed (maternal breastmilk, donor breast milk or formula), type of enteral feeds at discharge, type and method of feeding on discharge home, and mother and infant hospital length of stay. Maternal surveys were designed using a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database (https://www.project-redcap.org/) [11, 12] and sent to participants by text message to their mobile phone or by email. Surveys were sent weekly until infants reached 42 weeks corrected age (CA) and then at 6 weeks CA, 3 months CA, and 6 months CA.

Data were collected about breastfeeding practices at each time point and included current breastfeeding status and feeding method. All data were collected and managed using the REDCap database hosted on secure servers by the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute.

Outcomes

Key outcomes were exclusive breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months of age, corrected for prematurity, and any breastfeeding (exclusive or mixed feeding) at these time points. Any breastfeeding was defined as a baby receiving any breast milk at each time point and in the preceding week. Exclusive breastfeeding was defined as a baby receiving only breastmilk (with the exception of medications, oral rehydration solutions or vitamins and minerals) and no infant formula or non-human milk at each study time point and the week immediately prior. The impact of feeding practices on initial hospital length of stay was assessed.

Sample size

A sample size of 230 women allowed for the percentage of breastfeeding (exclusive or any) to be estimated with a precision of ± 7% or better, with precision defined as a 95% confidence interval (CI) width around the estimated percentage. The sample size allowed for a 10% loss to follow-up and conservatively assumes no gains in precision due to the inclusion of multiple births.

Ethical considerations

Breastfeeding mothers of late preterm infants were approached in the Neonatal Unit or Postnatal ward and informed consent was obtained for their infant/s. Ethics approval was granted by the Women’s and Children’s Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee HREC/18/WCHN/064. Site-specific and local governance approvals were obtained at each study site.

Statistical methods

Descriptive statistics are given as means with standard deviations (SD) or frequencies (percentages) according to the type and distribution of the data. Differences in infant hospital length of stay according to early use of formula was analysed using linear regression, with generalised estimating equations used to account for clustering due to multiple births. An adjustment was made for gestational age, maternal age, multiple birth, site and neonatal intensive care unit admission, all considered potential confounders of the association, with results described as a mean difference with a 95% CI. Associations between maternal and infant characteristics and breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months CA were assessed using multivariable logistic regression models (separate models for exclusive breastfeeding and any breastfeeding at each time point), with generalised estimating equations used to account for clustering due to multiple births. Effects are described as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI. Maternal and infant characteristics were included in multivariable models based on factors associated with increased breastfeeding rates reported in the literature [13]. There was no evidence of collinearity between characteristics or poor model fit in any of the multivariable models considered. Due to low loss to follow-up rates, complete case analyses were used to address missing data. Statistical calculations were performed using R version 4.0.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

Two hundred seventy infants born at 34+0 to 36+6 weeks gestational age born to 229 mothers were recruited and included in the final analysis (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Participant flow chart–infants.

The mean age of mothers was 31.3 years and most women were born in Australia (76%). A high proportion of women planned to breastfeed their baby prior to delivering (84%) and 64% planned to continue breastfeeding for at least 6 months. Slightly more males were enrolled (58%) and the mean infant birthweight was 2.5Kg. See for complete description of the characteristics of mothers and their infants included in the study.

Feeding practices

During their initial hospital stay, 97% (n = 261) of infants received breastmilk; 17% (n = 45) received breastmilk only, and 83% (n = 225) received infant formula during their hospital stay; no infants received donor breast milk, . The mean length of stay for infants (n = 264) was 10.9 days (SD 9.4), (Table 1) compared to 8.2 days (SD 7.2) for those receiving breastmilk only (n = 45) and 11.4 (SD 9.7) days for infants that received any formula (n = 216). Adjusting for maternal age, multiple birth, study site and neonatal intensive care admission, the mean difference between the breastmilk only and any formula groups was 5.5 days (95% CI 2.86 to 8.20). The difference was attenuated with further adjustment for gestational age but remained significantly different at 2.9 days (95% CI 0.31 to 5.43, p = 0.03).

Table 1

Maternal and infant characteristics*.

Maternal Characteristics	N = 229
Maternal age (years): Mean (SD), (n = 223)	31 (5)
Mother born in Australia, (n = 220)	167 (76)
Mother Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, (n = 216)	9 (4)
SEIFA# A+D quintile, (n = 187)
• 1	47 (25)
• 2	26 (14)
• 3	57 (31)
• 4	39 (21)
• 5	18 (10)
Multiple birth, (n = 229)	41 (18)
Mode of birth, (n = 224)
• Vaginal delivery	122 (55)
• Emergency caesarean	71 (32)
• Elective caesarean	31 (14)
Length of inpatient stay (days): Median (IQR), (n = 223)	3 (2–5)
Planned duration of breastfeeding, (n = 207)
• ≤6 months	31 (15)
• >6 months	133 (64)
• Undecided	43 (21)
Planned mode of feeding prior to birth, (n = 221)
• Breastfeeding (by breast or bottle)	186 (84)
• Formula Feeding (or mixed feeding)	30 (14)
• Undecided	5 (2)
Infant Characteristics	N = 270
Sex, (n = 270)
Female	113 (41.9)
Male	157 (58.1)
Birthweight (kg): mean (SD), (n = 262)	2.5 (0.5)
Gestational age <36 weeks, (n = 270)	150 (56)
Jaundice (requiring phototherapy), (n = 263)	116 (44)
Hypoglycaemia‡, (n = 262)	85 (32)
Hypothermia within the first 24 hours of age, (n = 262)	184 (70)
Neonatal intensive care unit admission, (n = 262)	39 (15)
Length of inpatient stay (days): Mean (SD), (n = 264)	10.9 (9.4)
Readmission within the first 7 days of initial discharge, (n = 263)	26 (10)

*Results are expressed as No. (%) unless otherwise indicated.

#Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) 1 being the most disadvantaged and 5 the most advantaged. Further information: https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/seifa

‡Hypoglycaemia <2.0mmol/L <4 hours of age or <2.5mmol/L >4 hours of age—until 24 hours of age.

On initial discharge home, 74% (n = 200) of the infants were exclusively breastfeeding (Table 2). At 6 weeks CA, 72% (n = 183) of infants were still receiving some breastmilk. By 3 months CA, this was 64% (n = 162), and by 6 months CA, this had fallen further to 53% (n = 132) infants receiving any breastmilk. Exclusive breastfeeding at 6 weeks CA was 41% (n = 103), and at 3 months CA was at 35% (n = 88), .

Table 2

Infant feeding practices during initial hospitalisation.

Type of feeding and method	N = 270 N (%)
Type of first milk feed
• Breastmilk, any	203 (77.8)
• Formula	58 (22.2)
• Missing	9 (3.3)
Types of milk feeds given during the baby’s admission
• Breastmilk (mother’s own)	261 (96.7)
• Formula (preterm formulation)	103 (38.1)
• Formula (term formulation)	168 (62.2)
• Other (e.g., breastmilk with additives)	72 (26.7)
Types of feeding methods used during the baby’s admission
• Breastfeeding (direct)	251 (93.0)
• Bottle	206 (76.3)
• Gavage feeding	168 (62.2)
• Syringe, Finger-feeding	175 (64.8)
• Cup feeding	5 (1.9)
• Supply line	6 (2.2)
• Other (e.g., perfusor feeding)	54 (20.0)
Received intravenous fluid for nutrition or hydration (n = 261)	113 (43.3)
Missing	9 (3.3)
Types of feeds on discharge home
• Breastmilk only (mothers own)	200 (74.1)
• Breastmilk and formula (mixed feeding)	58 (21.5)
• Formula	41 (15.2)
• Other (e.g. breastmilk with additives)	35 (13.0)
Types of feeding methods on discharge home
• Breastfeeding (direct)	239 (88.5)
• Bottle	175 (64.8)
• Gavage feeding	54 (20.0)
• Syringe, Finger-feeding	21 (7.8)
• Supply line	1 (0.4)
• Other	14 (5.2)

Maternal and infant factors associated with longer duration of breastfeeding

Gestational age was not associated with increased exclusive or partial breastfeeding duration at 6 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months CA, . Maternal intention to breastfeed longer than 6 months was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving exclusive breastmilk at all time points. Receipt of any formula as the first milk feed was associated with a decreased likelihood of exclusive or any breastfeeding at 6 weeks, adjusted OR 0.22 (0.09, 0.53), OR 0.36 (0.14, 0.93), respectively. Care at one study centre was associated with an increased likelihood of any breastfeeding at 6 weeks CA (OR 9.25, 95% CI 1.77 to 48.26); no other centre associations were found at the other time points, Table 4.

Table 4

Multivariable models to determine factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding and any breastfeeding.

	6 weeks		3 months		6 months
Variable	Adjusted OR exclusive breastfeeding (95% CI)	Adjusted OR any breastfeeding (95% CI)	Adjusted OR exclusive breastfeeding (95% CI)	Adjusted OR any breastfeeding (95% CI)	Adjusted OR exclusive breastfeeding (95% CI)	Adjusted OR any breastfeeding (95% CI)
*Centre = WCH	1 (reference)	1 (reference)	1 (reference)	1 (reference)	1 (reference)	1 (reference)
Centre = FMC	1.04 (0.33, 3.34)	9.25 (1.77, 48.26)	0.92 (0.29, 2.98)	2.26 (0.75, 6.83)	1.20 (0.36, 4.01)	2.21 (0.55, 8.89)
Centre = LMH	1.24 (0.39, 3.90)	0.48 (0.14, 1.64)	1.49 (0.55, 4.09)	0.54 (0.17, 1.74)	0.85 (0.26, 2.83)	0.66 (0.21, 2.08)
‡Plan to breastfeed >6mths	4.98 (2.39, 10.40)	10.79 (4.37, 26.63)	4.67 (2.20, 9.92)	9.21 (4.26, 19.92)	6.64 (2.67, 16.47)	6.92 (3.26, 14.66)
Child sex = male	0.72 (0.36, 1.42)	0.31 (0.12, 0.79)	0.78 (0.40, 1.54)	0.65 (0.30, 1.44)	0.65 (0.31, 1.35)	0.69 (0.34, 1.40)
NICU = yes	0.89 (0.40, 2.00)	1.32 (0.41, 4.26)	0.84 (0.36, 1.95)	0.83 (0.32, 2.12)	0.89 (0.35, 2.23)	0.84 (0.40, 1.77)
Formula as first milk feed	0.22 (0.09, 0.53)	0.36 (0.14, 0.93)	0.51 (0.22, 1.17)	0.51 (0.20, 1.30)	0.43 (0.16, 1.15)	0.67 (0.26, 1.74)
feed = formula only
#SEIFA 1	1 (reference)	1 (reference)	1 (reference)	1 (reference)	1 (reference)	1 (reference)
SEIFA 2	0.98 (0.34, 2.83)	1.00 (0.28, 3.61)	1.03 (0.37, 2.91)	2.03 (0.59, 7.03)	0.80 (0.29, 2.26)	1.33 (0.42, 4.25)
SEIFA 3	1.47 (0.62, 3.53)	2.42 (0.79, 7.46)	1.53 (0.62, 3.77)	2.34 (0.86, 6.35)	0.93 (0.37, 2.34)	1.64 (0.69, 3.89)
SEIFA 4	1.64 (0.58, 4.61)	1.80 (0.48, 6.80)	1.88 (0.69, 5.11)	2.09 (0.67, 6.54)	1.05 (0.35, 3.18)	1.44 (0.51, 4.09)
SEIFA 5	1.04 (0.25, 4.33)	5.13 (0.92, 28.67)	2.02 (0.50, 8.12)	11.19 (2.40, 52.05)	0.99 (0.23, 4.26)	4.33 (0.73, 25.52)

Results reaching statistical significance are in bold

Abbreviations: CI, Confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; WCH, Women’s and Children’s Hospital; FMC, Flinders Medical Centre; LMH, Lyell McEwin Hospital; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; SEIFA, Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas

*Global p-value for Centre: (6 weeks) OR exclusive P = 0.93 and OR mixed or exclusive P = 0.009; (3 months) OR exclusive P = 0.71 and OR mixed or exclusive P = 0.14; (6 months) OR exclusive P = 0.91 and OR mixed or exclusive P = 0.13

‡’Undecided’ and ≤6 months combined as reference group due to small numbers

#Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) 1 being the most disadvantaged and 5 the most advantaged. Global p-value for SEIFA: (6 weeks) OR exclusive P = 0.81 and OR mixed or exclusive P = 0.27; (3 months) OR exclusive P = 0.64 and OR mixed or exclusive P = 0.04; (6 months) OR exclusive P = 0.99 and OR mixed or exclusive P = 0.51

Discussion

In this prospective cohort of South Australian women intending to provide breastmilk to their late preterm infants, exclusive breastfeeding rates at discharge were lower than rates reported in term infant populations in Australia [14]. Approximately half of participating women were providing at least some breastmilk at 6 months CA. Further, Formula use as the first milk feed in the hospital and intention to breastfeed >6 months were significant predictors of breastfeeding duration. Further, The use of formula during hospitalisation was associated with a longer length of stay than when only maternal breastmilk was fed to infants after correcting for potential confounders.

Breastmilk is the optimal nutrition for infants and critical for late preterm infants to support overall growth and development, gut maturation and immune protection [15, 16]. In our cohort study of women who intended to provide at least some breastmilk to their babies, 80% of their babies received any formula as supplementary nutrition. This is consistent with the limited existing literature reporting early nutrition practices in late preterm infants, which suggests that formula use is common during the neonatal admission [15].

Our findings may reflect the frequent delays in establishing breastfeeding in this population, potentially resulting in the use of formula to avoid hypoglycaemia, dehydration and to support the high nutrient requirements for postnatal growth. Interestingly, formula use compared to the use of maternal breastmilk only was associated with a longer length of hospital stay. This association remained after accounting for factors indicative of the complexity of care the infants required (e.g., gestational age, neonatal intensive care admission, and multiple births). Further exploration of this association is warranted, as it may reflect factors not accounted for in our models, such as maternal illness. Nevertheless, formula use during the neonatal admission may be modifiable with interventions such as pasteurised donor human milk or oral dextrose preparations [17]. There remains little high-quality evidence to guide the clinical management of nutrition support in late preterm infants. Further research is warranted to understand the impact of adopting alternative strategies to maximise nutritional outcomes in this population.

Previous studies have reported that approximately 60% of late preterm infants leave the hospital being breastfed exclusively, and the overall duration of breastfeeding is shorter when compared with infants born at term [9, 18, 19]. Our study found higher rates of exclusive breastfeeding at discharge (74%), however, this dropped substantially to 35% by 3 months CA. Maternal intention to breastfeed for >6 months was the most consistent factor associated with a longer duration of breastfeeding across all time periods. This is consistent with previous research [20], predominantly in term infants, and points to the need to promote breastfeeding antenatally to help women clarify their intentions. Our findings suggest there is room to improve support for women after they leave the hospital. Previous research has identified a lack of support from health care professionals in hospital and after discharge home and perceptions about low breastmilk supply as key barriers to breastfeeding late preterm infants [21]. These barriers require addressing and are identified as a priority by parents and care providers [22, 23].

Strengths of our study include recruitment from multiple hospital sites with diverse populations, prospective collection of data minimising recall bias and minimal attrition to 6 months CA. Our study was designed to examine factors associated with breastfeeding duration in women who intended to provide at least some breastmilk to their infant, so there may be limitations with the generalisability of our findings to the whole late preterm infant population. Feeding outcomes post infant discharge were collected by maternal report, as were other post-discharge outcomes; thus, the findings could be subject to reporting bias. Further, residual confounding remains a risk in the analyses examining the length of stay and factors associated with breastfeeding duration, as not all relevant covariates could be included in the model.

Our findings demonstrate that exclusive breastfeeding rates were low in a cohort of women intending to breastfeed their late preterm infants, with less than half providing breastmilk at 6 months corrected age. early feeding practices including the use of formula as the first feed in hospital, and intention to breastfeed >6 months were significant predictors of breastfeeding duration in this population. These findings highlight the difficulties women experiencing late preterm birth face in establishing and sustaining breastfeeding and the need for improved support during initial hospitalisation and in the first few months following birth.

7 Feb 2022

4 Mar 2022

Dr Wubet Alebachew Bayih

PLOS One Editorial Office

RE: PONE-D-21-31091: Breastfeeding outcomes in late preterm infants: a multi-centre prospective cohort study

Dear Dr Wubet

Thank you for considering our Original Research paper listed above for publication in PLOS One.

Please find our rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s).

Reviewer #1:

1.Page 5, line 81 & 82: Indicate the specific recruitment date, completed date, and data collection finalised date

All dates updated to exact date.

2.Page 6, line 107: Is that any human milk or their mothers’ milk? Does this include donor breast milk?

Methods clarified and wording updated;

Exclusive breastfeeding was defined as a baby receiving only breastmilk and medications, including oral rehydration solutions, vitamins and minerals, but no infant formula or non-human milk at each study time point and the week immediately preceding them.

3.State the way you used to take consents for under 18 years old participants under ethical consideration section

Ethical Considerations section updated;

Mothers of late preterm were approached in the Neonatal Units or Postnatal ward and informed consent was obtained for their infant/s. Ethics approval was granted by the Women’s and Children’s Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee HREC/18/WCHN/064. Site-specific and local governance approvals were obtained at each study site.

4. Was the questionnaire validated in the local context and how?

There wasn’t really one questionnaire for the study. Data at enrolment was obtained via maternal report in person, telephone or surveys that were designed as electronic data capture instruments. Short follow up surveys were sent to women at study timepoints (6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months) so that women could report on their breastfeeding practices remotely via text or email. Methods updated for clarity.

5.Have you tested multicollinearity and the model fitness? If not reason? If yes, indicate it clearly.

Relationships between measures of breastfeeding over time, or between exclusive breastfeeding and any breastfeeding at each time point were considered in separate statistical models. We have now explained in the methods that “There was no evidence of collinearity between characteristics or poor model fit in any of the multivariable models considered.” We have also clarified in the statistical methods that measures of breastfeeding (exclusive or any) were analysed in separate models at each time point (hence there were no concerns around collinearity in the breastfeeding outcomes over time).

6. Table 1: what do you mean “born in Australia, (n=220)”? since your study was conducted completely @Australia.

This is listed under maternal characteristics and refers to mothers born in Australia, table line headings have been updated for clarity.

Reviewer #2:

Abstract - Avoid abbreviations in the abstract

Abbreviations removed unless used multiple times, i.e. corrected age.

Background -It would be better if you add the burden of the problem and the rationales why you are doing this research

Further explanation added line 57 and 58: ‘Breastmilk is the optimal nutrition to support overall growth and development, gut maturation and immune protection. Complications relating to poor feeding are major contributors to the health burden in this population and one of the leading causes of extended hospital stay and readmission.’

In the methods and materials section of the abstract- The type of model used to determine the factors associated with breastfeeding duration was not mentioned. I didn't understand why you used method and material? What materials did you use in this study?

In the methods it states that “Associations between maternal and infant characteristics and breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months CA were assessed using multivariable logistic regression models (separate models for exclusive breastfeeding and any breastfeeding at each time point), with generalised estimating equations used to account for clustering due to multiple births. Effects are described as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI. Maternal and infant characteristics were included in multivariable models based on factors associated with increased breastfeeding rates reported in the literature.”

Heading changed to Methods.

The conclusion section of the abstract – I have confused by the findings stated in your result section and conclusion. Receipt of formula milk was associated with BF (breastfeeding) duration in the result section but in the conclusion part, early feeding practice and intention to breastfeed were predictors of BF duration?

Sentence revised for clarity: Early feeding practices including the use of formula in hospitals, and intention to breastfeed >6 months were significant predictors of breastfeeding duration in this population.

Outcome: line 104 - initial hospital length of stay and exclusive or any breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months CA. what parameters do you use to categorize the outcome variable into 6 weeks,3 months, and six months?

Key outcomes were exclusive or any breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Surveys were sent to women at these timepoints. Initial length of stay was assessed but not in relation to feeding practices at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. observation. This paragraph has been edited for clarity.

- I couldn't find the adjusted odds ratio value in your multivariate logistic regression model to identify the factors associated with breastfeeding duration. if I was not mistaken, how could you conclude the factors associated with breastfeeding duration without making an adjusted odds ratio? you have made only bivariate logistic regression based on table 4.

All odds ratios in Table 4 are from multivariable logistic regression models. For example, the odds ratios provided for centre are adjusted for duration planned to breastfeed, sex, NICU admission, formula as first milk feed and SEIFA. To make this clearer, we have now labelled the effect estimate as “Adjusted OR” in the table.

Result –you have made too long and interrupted tables, and lacks description

Tables re-formatted and description added.

Table 3- breastfeeding at 6 months, (n=??? 248) - I am not clear about it? Generally, tables are not prepared in the way of attracting readers.

Table 3 corrected and all tables modified for readability.

Discussion

Line 212- Line 215 this paragraph lacks reference.

This paragraph has been modified: Nevertheless, formula use during the neonatal admission may be modifiable with interventions such as pasteurised donor human milk or oral dextrose preparations. There remains little high-quality evidence to guide the clinical management of nutrition support in late preterm infants. Further research is warranted to understand the impact of adopting alternative strategies to maximise nutritional outcomes in this population.

Line 218 – L 220. This statement lacks justification about exclusive breastfeeding at discharge related to an increase from 60 % to 74% and decreasing to 33% by 3 months of CA.

This paragraph has been modified.

Maternal intention to breastfeed>6 months is the most consistent predictor of breastfeeding duration. This factor was not well discussed with other research findings.

Line 226 to line 234 in revised manuscript discusses intention to breastfeed: Maternal intention to breastfeed for >6 months was the most consistent factor associated with a longer duration of breastfeeding across all time periods. This is consistent with previous research, predominantly in term infants, and points to the need to promote breastfeeding antenatally to help women clarify their intentions. Our findings suggest there is room to improve support for women after they leave the hospital. Previous research has identified a lack of support from health care professionals in hospital and after discharge home and perceptions about low breastmilk supply as key barriers to breastfeeding late preterm infants. These barriers require addressing and are identified as a priority by parents and care providers.

A clean and marked up copy of our revised manuscript has been uploaded to Editorial Manager.

We look forward to hearing back from you.

Yours sincerely

Associate Professor Amy Keir

On behalf of the Authorship Group

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Apr 2022

8 Apr 2022

Thank you for your email received 7th April 2022 with additional comments from Reviewer 2. We appreciate the thorough review and feedback to improve our manuscript. Please find our responses below:

Reviewer #2: The authors were not fully addressed my concerns especially in the abstract part of the manuscript. For instance,

1. In the methods and materials section of the abstract- The type of model used to determine the factors associated with breastfeeding duration was not mentioned. Subheading in the abstract is still method and material.

A description of the model has been added to abstract methods: “Associations between maternal and infant characteristics and breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months CA were assessed using multivariable logistic regression models.”

Subheading updated to “methods”.

2. The conclusion section of the abstract – I have confused by the findings stated in your result section and conclusion. Receipt of formula milk was associated with BF (breastfeeding) duration in the result section but in the conclusion part, early feeding practice and intention to breastfeed were predictors of BF duration?

Abstract conclusion updated for clarity to: “Formula as the first milk feed and intention to breastfeed >6 months were significant predictors of breastfeeding duration.

3. Table 1 and table 3 needs description in the frequency column

Description added to frequency column in Table 1 and 3.

Submitted filename: Response_To_The_Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

22 Jul 2022

Breastfeeding outcomes in late preterm infants: a multi-centre prospective cohort study

PONE-D-21-31091R2

Dear Dr. Keir,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ralph C. A. Rippe, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing all my concerns . Now, the manuscript is suitable for publication to plos one

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Tamirat Getachew

Reviewer #2: Yes: Natnael Moges

**********

5 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-31091R2

Breastfeeding outcomes in late preterm infants: a multi-centre prospective cohort study

Dear Dr. Keir:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ralph C. A. Rippe

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 3

Breast feeding outcomes at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months corrected age.

Timepoint	N = 270 N (%) [95% CI]
Breastfeeding at 6 weeks, (n = 251):
• Exclusive	103 (41.0) [34.1, 47.9]
• Mixed	80 (31.9) [25.2, 38.6]
• None	68 (27.1) [20.7, 33.4]
Breastfeeding at 3 months, (n = 253):
• Exclusive	88 (34.8) [28.3, 41.3]
• Mixed	74 (29.2) [22.9, 35.6]
• None	91 (36.0) [29.3, 42.7]
Breastfeeding at 6 months, (n = 248):
• Exclusive	71 (28.6) [22.4, 34.9]
• Mixed	61 (24.6) [18.6, 30.6]
• None	116 (46.8) [39.7, 53.9]