4.2 Article

Physician Mothers and Breastfeeding: A Cross-Sectional Survey

期刊

BREASTFEEDING MEDICINE
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 312-320

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/bfm.2019.0193

关键词

infant-feeding intention; physician mothers; breastfeeding duration; exclusive breastfeeding

资金

  1. NIH from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [1UL1TR000064]
  2. Clinical and Translational Science Institute, NIH [1UL1RR029890]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To explore infant-feeding intentions and behavior of physician mothers as well as their breastfeeding enablers and obstacles. Study Design: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among female physicians with at least one biological child recruited through the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine. The main outcomes were duration of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) and duration of any breastfeeding (BFD). We determined predictors of EBF and BFD. Results: The 570 participants reported intention to breastfeed at least 12 months in 78.1% of cases. Breastfeeding rates were 97.8%, 85.5%, and 55.4% at birth, 6, and 12 months. EBF rates were 88.5%, 76.3%, and 40.9% at birth, 3, and 6 months. Younger participant age, breastfeeding discontinuation not due to work-related demands, and heightened maternal satisfaction with BFD were associated with longer EBF and BFD. EBF at birth, less maternal stress, availability of time to express milk, and collegial support were associated with longer EBF. Longer maternal BFD goal, longer maternity leave, existence of laws or regulations to support breastfeeding among working mothers, later child order, and lower level of maternal depression were associated with longer BFD. Conclusions: Maternal infant-feeding intentions and work-related factors both play important roles in physician mothers' infant-feeding behavior. Longer maternity leave, regulations to support breastfeeding among working mothers, and workplace support might significantly improve physician mothers' BFD.

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

4.2
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