4.3 Article

Evaluating regional differences in breast-feeding in French maternity units: a multi-level approach

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
卷 13, 期 12, 页码 1946-1954

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S136898001000159X

关键词

Breast-feeding; Regional variations; Social inequalities; Multi-level models

资金

  1. General Health Directorate (DGS)
  2. French Ministry for Higher Education and Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To study how individual and regional characteristics might explain regional variations in breast-feeding rates in maternity units and to identify outlier regions with very low or high breast-feeding rates. Design: Individual characteristics (mother and infant) were collected during hospital stay. All newborns fed entirely or partly on breast milk were considered breast-fed. Regional characteristics were extracted from census data. Statistical analysis included multi-level models and estimation of empirical Bayes residuals to identify outlier regions. Setting: All births in all administrative regions in France in 2003. Subjects: A national representative sample of 13 186 live births. Results: Breast-feeding rates in maternity units varied from 43% to 80% across regions. Differences in the distribution of individual characteristics accounted for 55% of these variations. We identified two groups of regions with the lowest and highest breast-feeding rates, after adjusting for individual-level characteristics. In addition to maternal occupation and nationality, the social characteristics of regions, particularly the population's educational level and the percentage of non-French residents, were significantly associated with breast-feeding rates. Conclusions: Social characteristics at both the individual and regional levels influence breast-feeding rates in maternity units. Promotion policies should be directed at specific regions, groups within the community and categories of mothers to reduce the gaps and increase the overall breast-feeding rate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据