4.1 Article

Commonalities and differences in infant feeding attitudes and practices in the context of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: A metasynthesis

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09540121.2013.813625

关键词

breastfeeding; vertical transmission; Africa; HIV; mother-to-child transmission; metasynthesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) has been identified as a key intervention to promote infant health and to reduce the vertical transmission of HIV. Despite this knowledge and increased resources to promote EBF, the practice in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) remains low among HIV+ women. Although a number of qualitative studies have been conducted throughout SSA, the influences on and consequences of infant feeding choices of HIV+ mothers' findings have not been regarded systematically. Therefore, our objective was to identify overarching themes, commonalities, and differences in infant feeding choices among qualitative studies with HIV+ mothers in SSA. Sixteen qualitative studies of infant feeding practices in the context of HIV were identified. Noblit and Hare's seven-step metasynthesis methodology was used to analyze the experiences of HIV+ women and those who provide infant feeding services/counseling. Data were available from approximately 920 participants (i.e., 750 HIV+ mothers, 109 health-care providers, and 62 family members) across 13 SSA countries from 2000 to 2011. From these data, five themes emerged within which 3-4 overarching key metaphors were identified. The consistency of key metaphors across a variety of geographic, economic, and cultural settings suggest the importance of approaching infant feeding holistically, within the context of maternal knowledge, health-care support, family resources, and cultural expectations. EBF campaigns in SSA are more likely to successfully support optimal health for infants and a safe supportive environment for their mothers when the impact of infant feeding decisions are evaluated across these themes.

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