4.6 Article

To what extent does confounding explain the association between breastfeeding duration and cognitive development up to age 14? Findings from the UK Millennium Cohort Study

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 17, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267326

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Longer duration of breastfeeding is associated with higher cognitive scores, and this association remains even after adjusting for socioeconomic position and maternal cognitive ability, although the effect is modest.
BackgroundBreastfeeding duration is associated with improved cognitive development in children, but it is unclear whether this is a causal relationship or due to confounding. This study evaluates whether the observed association is explained by socioeconomic position (SEP) and maternal cognitive ability. MethodsData from 7,855 singletons born in 2000-2002 and followed up to age 14 years within the UK Millennium Cohort Study were analysed. Mothers reported breastfeeding duration, and children's cognitive abilities were assessed at 5, 7, 11, and 14 years using validated measures. Standardised verbal (age 5 to 14) and spatial (age 5 to 11) cognitive scores were compared across breastfeeding duration groups using multivariable linear mixed-effects models (repeated outcome measures). ResultsAt all ages, longer breastfeeding durations were associated with higher cognitive scores after accounting for the child's own characteristics. Adjustment for SEP approximately halved the effect sizes. Further adjustment for maternal cognitive scores removed the remaining associations at age 5, but not at ages 7, 11 and 14 (e.g.: verbal scores, age 14; breastfed >= 12 months vs never breastfed: 0.26 SD; 95%CI: 0.18, 0.34). ConclusionThe associations between breastfeeding duration and cognitive scores persist after adjusting for SEP and maternal cognitive ability, however the effect was modest.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available