4.6 Article

Changes in the prevalence of breast feeding in preterm infants discharged from neonatal units: a register study over 10 years

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 6, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012900

关键词

-

资金

  1. Centre for Clinical Research Dalarna
  2. Uppsala-Orebro Regional Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: There are indications that the prevalence of exclusively breastfed preterm infants is decreasing in Sweden. The objective was to investigate trends in exclusive breast feeding at discharge from Swedish neonatal units and associated factors in preterm infants. Design, setting and participants: This is a register study with data from the Swedish Neonatal Quality Register. Data from 29 445 preterm infants (gestational age (GA) < 37 weeks) who were born during the period 2004-2013 were retrieved. Data included maternal, perinatal and neonatal characteristics. Data were analysed for the whole population as well as for 3 GA groups. Results: From 2004 to 2013, the prevalence of exclusive breast feeding decreased, in extremely preterm (GA 22-27 weeks) from 55% to 16%, in very preterm (GA 28-31 weeks) from 41% to 34% and in moderately preterm infants (GA 32-36 weeks) from 64% to 49%. The decline was statistically significant (p<0.001) in all 3 GA groups. This decline remained significant when adjustments were made for factors negatively associated with exclusive breast feeding and which became more prevalent during the study period, that is, small for GA (all groups) and maternal mental illness (very preterm and moderately preterm infants). Conclusions: In the past 10 years, Sweden has experienced a lower rate of exclusive breast feeding in preterm infants, especially in extremely preterm infants. The factors analysed in this study explain only a small proportion of this decline. The decline in exclusive breast feeding at discharge from neonatal units raises concern and present challenges to the units to support and promote breast feeding.

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