4.1 Article

Associations between breastfeeding rates and infant disease: A survey of 2338 Czech children

期刊

NUTRITION & DIETETICS
卷 77, 期 3, 页码 310-314

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1747-0080.12532

关键词

allergic disease; antibiotic use; full and partial breastfeeding rates; upper respiratory tract infection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Evidence has demonstrated that breastfeeding is the optimal nutrition for infants. The present study aims to report possible associations of the duration of full or partial breastfeeding with selected health outcomes during infancy. Methods Data from 2304 mothers were obtained by online mother-reported questionnaires at the age of 1 year of the child, providing information on full and partial breastfeeding durations, the frequency of infant upper respiratory tract infections and possible antibiotics use, and the occurrence of allergic diseases. Results Overall breastfeeding initiation rates (i.e. including both partial and full breastfeeding rates counted together) were 97.8%, declined to 95.1% at the age of 3 months, and remained as high as 90.0% at 6 months. At 1 year, 74.7% of children were still partially breastfed. There was no significant benefit of either full or partial breastfeeding over formula feeding for upper respiratory tract infection rates. Fully breastfed children had a significantly lower risk of early exposure to antibiotics when compared with either partially breastfed (odds ratio, OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.00, P = 0.048) or formula-fed (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.0, P = 0.047) children. We found a neutral effect of breastfeeding on the development of allergies. Conclusions Although no significant association between either full or partial breastfeeding versus formula feeding and the occurrence of respiratory infections during infancy was found, we demonstrated a significantly lower risk of early exposure to antibiotics in fully breastfed children when compared with those either partially breastfed or formula-fed.

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

4.1
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