4.5 Article

Home environment, not duration of breast-feeding, predicts intelligence quotient of children at four years

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 236-241

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2006.12.011

关键词

child development; intelligence quotient; Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale; duration of breast-feeding; home screening questionnaire; industrialized country

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We investigated the relation between duration of breast-feeding in infancy and the intelligence quotient (IQ) of children at 4 y of age in a well-nourished population of an industrialized country. Methods: Data on duration of breast-feeding were collected prospectively from a cohort of 302 children born between 1998 and 1999 in Adelaide, Australia. The IQ of the children was assessed at 4 y of age using the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Information on important predictors of childhood IQ including the quality of the home environment was also collected prospectively. Regression analyses were conducted to examine the effect of duration of breast-feeding on IQ with adjustment for potential confounders. Results: There was no association between the duration of breast-feeding and IQ of the children. The expected IQ of a child at 4 y of age who was breast-fed for 6 mo was only 0.2 point (95% confidence interval -0.8 to 1.2) higher than that of a child who had never been breast-fed after adjustments for the quality of the home environment and socioeconomic characteristics of families using multivariable regression analysis. The quality of the home environment, as assessed by the Home Screening Questionnaire, was the strongest predictor of IQ at 4 y. Conclusion: There was no association between duration of breast-feeding and childhood IQ in this relatively well-nourished cohort from an industrialized society. In such settings, the apparent benefit of breast-feeding on cognitive function is most likely attributable to sociodemographic factors. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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