4.6 Article

Factors Associated with Breastfeeding Initiation and Continuation: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 203, 期 -, 页码 190-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.08.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. Nestle Nutrition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To use a quantitative approach to evaluate the literature for quantity, quality, and consistency of studies of maternal and infant characteristics in association with breastfeeding initiation and continuation, and to conduct a meta-analysis to produce summary relative risks (RRs) for selected factors. Study design A systematic review using PubMed and CINAHL through March 2016 was conducted to identify relevant observational studies in developed nations, reporting a measure of risk for 1 or more of 6 quantitatively derived, high impact factors in relation to either breastfeeding initiation or continuation. One author abstracted data using a predesigned database. which was reviewed by a second independent author; data evaluation and interpretation included all co-authors. These factors were summarized using standard meta-analysis techniques. Results Six high impact factors were identified (smoking [39 papers], mode of delivery [47 papers]. parity [31 papers], dyad separation [17 papers], maternal education [62 papers], and maternal breastfeeding education [32 papers]). Summary RR from random-effects models for breastfeeding initiation were highest for high vs low maternal education (RR 2.28 [95% CI 1.92-2.70]), dyad connection vs not (RR 2.01 [95% CI 1.38-2.92]), and maternal nonsmoking vs smoking (RR = 1.76 [95% CI 1.59-1.95]); results were similar for breastfeeding continuation. Conclusions Despite methodological heterogeneity across studies, relatively consistent results were observed for these perinatally identifiable factors associated with breastfeeding initiation and continuation, which may be informative in developing targeted interventions to provide education and support for successful breastfeeding in more families.

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

4.6
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