Is there room for mothers' agency in the choice to breastfeed? A qualitative analysis of mothers' views on messages promoting breastfeeding in Quebec.

IF 1.5 Q3 NURSING
European Journal of Midwifery Pub Date : 2024-01-08 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.18332/ejm/174931
Thomas Delawarde-Saïas, Coralie Mercerat, Marion Adamiste, Émilie Pigeon-Gagné, Cécile Delawarde, Johanna Nouchi, Janie Comtois, Sarrah Bakhty, Julie Poissant
{"title":"Is there room for mothers' agency in the choice to breastfeed? A qualitative analysis of mothers' views on messages promoting breastfeeding in Quebec.","authors":"Thomas Delawarde-Saïas, Coralie Mercerat, Marion Adamiste, Émilie Pigeon-Gagné, Cécile Delawarde, Johanna Nouchi, Janie Comtois, Sarrah Bakhty, Julie Poissant","doi":"10.18332/ejm/174931","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This exploratory cross-sectional study focuses on the experiences of mothers regarding health messages promoting breastfeeding. The objective is to describe the content and context in which messages are conveyed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 944 new mothers responded to a questionnaire (15-31 January 2021) on their perception of health messages promoting breastfeeding and their feeling of agreement towards these messages, their intention to breastfeed, incentives received, and their relationship with the professionals. Frequencies were carried out for all non-textual data and textual data were analyzed using content thematic analysis. The recruitment was made through social media and snowball effect.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most of the respondents reported wanting to breastfeed; 91% breastfed their child, 80.8% participants agreed with the messages they received, and 67.9% of respondents strongly agreeing that breastfeeding was the best choice for their child. Moreover, the content of the messages could sometimes be judgmental and coercive, leading to emotions such as guilt. Sixty-two women also reported a lack of support when they expressed their desire or their need to feed their baby in other ways (e.g. breastmilk with bottles or formulas).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The perceived issue of breastfeeding messages was not the content itself, but the way in which information was conveyed. Failure to take mothers' difficulties into account and failure to present alternatives to breastfeeding were seen as major issues by women. This study highlights the importance of rethinking the way in which information is provided by professionals, in order to reinforce the autonomy of new mothers regarding the feeding of their child.</p>","PeriodicalId":32920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Midwifery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10772811/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18332/ejm/174931","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This exploratory cross-sectional study focuses on the experiences of mothers regarding health messages promoting breastfeeding. The objective is to describe the content and context in which messages are conveyed.

Methods: A total of 944 new mothers responded to a questionnaire (15-31 January 2021) on their perception of health messages promoting breastfeeding and their feeling of agreement towards these messages, their intention to breastfeed, incentives received, and their relationship with the professionals. Frequencies were carried out for all non-textual data and textual data were analyzed using content thematic analysis. The recruitment was made through social media and snowball effect.

Results: Most of the respondents reported wanting to breastfeed; 91% breastfed their child, 80.8% participants agreed with the messages they received, and 67.9% of respondents strongly agreeing that breastfeeding was the best choice for their child. Moreover, the content of the messages could sometimes be judgmental and coercive, leading to emotions such as guilt. Sixty-two women also reported a lack of support when they expressed their desire or their need to feed their baby in other ways (e.g. breastmilk with bottles or formulas).

Conclusions: The perceived issue of breastfeeding messages was not the content itself, but the way in which information was conveyed. Failure to take mothers' difficulties into account and failure to present alternatives to breastfeeding were seen as major issues by women. This study highlights the importance of rethinking the way in which information is provided by professionals, in order to reinforce the autonomy of new mothers regarding the feeding of their child.

母亲在选择母乳喂养时是否有自主权?对魁北克母亲对母乳喂养宣传信息看法的定性分析。
导言这项探索性横断面研究的重点是母亲们对促进母乳喂养的健康信息的体验。研究目的是描述信息传递的内容和背景:共有 944 名新妈妈回答了一份调查问卷(2021 年 1 月 15-31 日),内容涉及她们对母乳喂养健康信息的看法、对这些信息的认同感、母乳喂养意愿、获得的激励以及与专业人员的关系。对所有非文本数据进行了频率分析,并使用内容主题分析法对文本数据进行了分析。通过社交媒体和滚雪球效应进行了招募:大多数受访者表示想要母乳喂养;91%的受访者用母乳喂养自己的孩子,80.8%的受访者同意他们收到的信息,67.9%的受访者非常同意母乳喂养是孩子的最佳选择。此外,信息的内容有时会带有评判性和强迫性,从而导致内疚等情绪。62名妇女还表示,当她们表示希望或需要以其他方式(如母乳加奶瓶或配方奶粉)喂养婴儿时,她们得不到支持:母乳喂养信息的问题不在于内容本身,而在于传递信息的方式。没有考虑到母亲的困难和没有介绍母乳喂养的替代方法是妇女们认为的主要问题。这项研究强调了重新思考专业人员提供信息的方式的重要性,以加强新妈妈在喂养孩子方面的自主权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Midwifery
European Journal of Midwifery Nursing-Maternity and Midwifery
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.80%
发文量
65
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信