4.1 Article

What Works to Improve Duration of Exclusive Breastfeeding: Lessons from the Exclusive Breastfeeding Promotion Program in Rural Indonesia

期刊

MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH JOURNAL
卷 19, 期 7, 页码 1515-1525

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10995-014-1656-z

关键词

Exclusive breastfeeding; Determinant; Maternal knowledge; Breast engorgement; Formula samples; Grandmother's lack of support for EBF

资金

  1. Faculty of Medicine of Universitas Indonesia
  2. Higher Education Network Ring Initiative (HENRI)
  3. United States Agency for International Development-Indonesia [AID-497-A-11-00002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the study was to identify determinants of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) at the individual, family, community, and organizational level. This study was a secondary analysis of data from a multilevel promotion of EBF program in two rural public health centers (PHCs) in the Demak district, Central Java, Indonesia. The program was a quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest control group. A total of 599 participants were enrolled, consisting of 163 mother infant pairs, 163 fathers, 163 grandmothers, 82 community leaders, and 28 midwives. EBF duration and its determinants were measured and analyzed using Cox proportional-hazard model. Mothers with a high level of breastfeeding knowledge had the greatest EBF duration. Mothers who had a knowledge score > 80 had a 73 % (HR 0.27, 95 % CI 0.15, 0.48) greater chance of EBF compared to mothers who had a knowledge score of < 60. Factors which shortened EBF duration were grandmother's lack of support for EBF (HR 2.04, 95 % CI 1.33, 3.14), received formula samples at discharge (HR 1.99, 95 % CI 1.25, 3.16), and maternal experience of breast engorgement (HR 1.97, 95 % CI 1.32, 2.94). High maternal breastfeeding knowledge was the only factor associated with longer duration of EBF. Barriers to EBF were breast engorgement, receiving formula samples at discharge, and a grandmother's lack of support for EBF.

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