BF: Artificial Nipple and Duration of Breastfeeding (2008)

Citation:

Scott JA, Binns CW, Oddy WH, Graham KI. Predictors of Breastfeeding Duration: Evidence From a Cohort Study. Pediatrics. 2006; 117: e646-e655.

PubMed ID: 16585281
 
Study Design:
Prospective cohort study
Class:
B - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Positive POSITIVE: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.
Research Purpose:

To report the duration of breastfeeding among a population of Australian women and to identify factors that are associated with the duration of full breastfeeding to six months and any breastfeeding to 12 months.

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Women who delivered a live infant who was free of any serious health conditions that would require transfer to the NICU at Perth’s major maternity hospital
  • Mothers whose infants were admitted to the special care nurseries of the participating hospital were eligible for recruitment.
Exclusion Criteria:

This was not delineated.

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

587 women were recruited from two maternity hospitals in Perth and completed a baseline questionnaire just before or shortly after discharge from the hospital.

Design

Cohort study.

Statistical Analysis

  • The chi-square test was used to compare the sociodemographic characteristics of participants and nonparticipants
  • Survival analysis was used to examine the duration of any breastfeeding and full breastfeeding because it provided a good understanding of breastfeeding behavior over time
  • Cox’s proportional hazards model was used to identify factors that were associated with the risk for discontinuing full breastfeeding before six months and any breastfeeding before 12 months.
Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurement

  • Those who agreed to participate completed the self-administered baseline questionnaire while in the hospital  or shortly after discharge from the hospital
  • Women were followed up by telephone interview at four, 10,16, 22, 32, 40 and 52 weeks postpartum.

Dependent Variables

  • Fully breastfeeding for six months: An infant was considered to be fully or predominately breast fed when he or she received breast milk as the main source of nourishment, that is, with or without water, water-based drinks, fruit juice, or oral rehydration solution, but did not receive any other liquids (including breast milk substitutes) or solids
  • Any breastfeeding to 12 months: Defined as an infant being fully breast fed or receiving both breast milk and formula, with or without solids.

Independent Variables

  • Sociodemographic
    • Mother's age
    • Maternal education (years)
    • Mother’s country of birth
    • Marital status
    • Age of infant when mother returned to work
    • Biomedical
    • Parity
    • Method of delivery
    • Mother’s prepregnancy BMI
    • Mother smoked before pregnancy
    • Infant sex
    • Infant admitted to special care nursery (SCN)
    • Breastfeeding problem at four weeks or earlier
    • Age pacifier introduced.
  • Hospital practices
    • Infant’s first feed [formula/other breast milk/colostrums(ref) 24-hour rooming-in in hospital]
    • Infant demand fed
    • Early infant-to-breast contact.
  • Psychosocial
    • Intended pregnancy
    • Mother attended antenatal classes for this or previous pregnancy
    • Mother’s Iowa Infant Feeding Attitude Scale (IIFAS) score
    • Father prefers breastfeeding
    • Maternal grandmother prefers breastfeeding
    • Intended breastfeeding duration.

Control Variables

All of the independent variables explored, with the exception of intended duration, were entered into the multivariate models.

Description of Actual Data Sample:
  • Initial N: 587
  • Attrition (final N): 382 at 12-month follow-up
  • Ethnicity: Not specified
  • Demographics: There were no significant differences in the age or level of education of participants compared with non-participants.
  N Percentage
Maternal Age, Years  
586
 
  <20
32
5.5
20-24
122
20.8
25-29
170
29.0
30-34
178
30.4
≥35
84
14.3
Maternal Education, Years
577
 
  <12
249
43.2
≥12
328
56.8
Mother's Country of Birth
585
 
  Australia/New Zealand
428
73.2
United Kingdom/Ireland
53
9.0
Other
104
17.8
Parity
587
 
  Primiparous
216
36.8
Multiparous
371
63.2
Method of Delivery
582
 
  Vaginal
411
70.6
Cesarean
171
29.4

Location

Perth, Australia.

Summary of Results:

At six months of age, fewer than half (45.8%) of infants were receiving any breast milk (95% CI: 41.8-49.8), and only 12.0% (95% CI: 9.4 -14.6) were being fully breast fed. Fewer than 1% of infants were exclusively breast fed at six months of age. The median duration of full and exclusive breastfeeding was five and three weeks, respectively.

Infants who had been introduced to a pacifier at or before four weeks of age or experienced difficulties with breastfeeding at or before four weeks postpartum were less likely to be fully breast fed or receiving any breast milk at different time points.

The introduction of the pacifier before 10 weeks of age was significantly associated with a shorter duration of any or full breastfeeding.

Factors that Were Independently Associated with the Risk for Discontinuing Any Breastfeeding Before 12 Months and Full Breastfeeding Before Six Months (N=382)

Variablea Fully Breastfeeding to Six Months Any Breastfeeding to 12 Months
HR 95% CI HR 95% CI
Maternal Age, Years <20 NS  
0.57
0.23-1.41
20-29    
1.55
1.21-1.98
≥30    
1.00
 
Age of Infant when Mother Returned to Work <6 months
1.42
1.08-1.88
1.69
1.28-2.34
6-12 months
1.63
1.18-2.25
1.50
1.07-2.09
Not working at 12 months
1.00
 
1.00
 
Breastfeeding Problems at or Before Four Weeks Yes
1.75
1.35-2.23
1.64
1.29-2.10
No
1.0
 
1.00
 
Age of Infant when Pacifier First Introduced <4 weeks
1.92
1.39-2.64
1.92
1.40-2.64
4-10 weeks
185
1.06-3.22
1.97
1.13-3.46
>10 weeks
1.47
0.79-2.73
1.61
0.86-3.00
Not using a pacifier at 12 months
1.00
 
1.00
 
Mother Smoked During Pregnancy

Yes

1.32
1.02-1.71
1.35
1.05-1.73
No
1.00
 
1.00
 
Mother's Infant Feeding Attitude
0.97
0.96-0.99
0.96
0.94-0.98
Father's Feeding PreferenceMaternal Grandmother's Feeding Preferenceb Prefers formula or ambivalent
1.00
 
NS
 
Prefers breastfeeding
0.71
 
0.55-0.91
 
Maternal Grandmother's Feeding Preferenceb Prefers formula or ambivalent
NS
 
1.00
 
Prefers breastfeeding
0.71
 
0.55-0.2
 
Planned Pregnancy Yes
0.76
 
0.60-0.98
 
No
1.00
 
NS
 
-2 Log Likelihood (Deviance) 2,815.38, DF=10 2,880.62, DF=11

HR: Hazard ratio
NS: Not significant
DF: Segrees of freedom
a All variables in the final model were variables for which, when excluded, the change in deviance compared with the corresponding chi-square test
b As perceived by mother.

Variables in full models included maternal age, years of education, marital status, country of birth, parity, age of infant when mother returned to work, whether mother smoked during pregnancy, delivery method, whether the pregnancy was planned, whether mother roomed-in in hospital, demand fed or initiated breastfeeding within 30 minutes of birth, sex of the infant, whether infant was admitted to SCN, infant’s first feed, age of infant when pacifier first introduced, whether the mother attended antenatal classes, whether mother had experienced breastfeeding difficulty by four weeks postpartum, mother’s attitude about infant feeding, father’s feeding preference and maternal grandmother’s feeding preference.

 

Author Conclusion:

Women should receive anticipatory guidance while still in the hospital on how to prevent or manage common breastfeeding difficulties and should be discouraged from introducing a pacifier before 10 weeks, if at all.

Funding Source:
University/Hospital: University of Manitoba (Canada)
Reviewer Comments:

The limitations and critique of the study, as stated by the authors seem appropriate.

Analytical longitudinal surveys refer to what epidemiologist term prospective or cohort studies. A cohort study is a study in which patients who presently have a certain condition and/or receive a particular treatment are followed over time and compared with another group who are not affected by the condition under investigation. Studies of this kind provide a better opportunity than one-time cross-sectional studies to examine whether certain behaviors do in fact lead to or cause the problem.

There was no description of how many women were lost to follow-up. Only 382 women (65% of the women participating in the study) remained for final analyses.

 

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) N/A
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? N/A
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) N/A
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? Yes
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? No
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? No
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) No
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? No
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? ???
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? N/A
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) N/A
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? N/A
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? Yes
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? N/A
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? N/A
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? N/A
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? Yes
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes