Breastfeeding support during the Covid-19 pandemic in England: analysis of a national survey.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Maria A Quigley, Sian Harrison, Ilana Levene, Phyllis Buchanan, Jenny McLeish, Fiona Alderdice
{"title":"Breastfeeding support during the Covid-19 pandemic in England: analysis of a national survey.","authors":"Maria A Quigley, Sian Harrison, Ilana Levene, Phyllis Buchanan, Jenny McLeish, Fiona Alderdice","doi":"10.1186/s12889-024-20618-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Breastfeeding support interventions are associated with longer breastfeeding duration. Contemporary nationally representative data on breastfeeding support as reported by women in England is lacking. Using English national maternity survey data, we describe sources and modes of breastfeeding support as reported by women who gave birth in 2020; sources of support are compared with earlier maternity surveys (2014, 2016, 2018). We also explore the characteristics associated with source/mode of support in 2020 (n = 4,611).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Women who breastfed were asked about sources of breastfeeding support (midwife; other health professional; other formal breastfeeding support such as breastfeeding specialist, breastfeeding support group, peer supporter; and partner/friend/relative), how this help was given and whether they would have liked more help from a health professional with breastfeeding. Adjusted risk ratios (aRR) for the association between sociodemographic and pregnancy-related variables and each source/mode of support were estimated using modified Poisson regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2014 to 2020 support from midwives and other health professionals declined (from 84.0% to 64.7%, and 61.6% to 15.5% respectively) whereas other formal breastfeeding support and informal support from partners/friends/relatives remained constant at 27-31% and 34-38% respectively. The proportion of women who wanted more help with breastfeeding increased from 30% in 2014-2018 to 46% in 2020. In 2020, women most likely to want more help with breastfeeding were nulliparous (aRR = 1.64, 95%CI:1.50-1.79), younger (aRR = 1.21, 95%CI:1.03-1.42) and of Pakistani ethnicity (aRR = 1.30, 95%CI:1.06-1.60). Receiving breastfeeding support over the phone (35%) was more common than via video call (13%) or text message (5%); these percentages varied according to socio-demographic and pregnancy-related factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Breastfeeding support has declined in recent years, and did not meet the needs of many women during the pandemic. Planning for a future emergency should include adequate provision of breastfeeding support particularly if staff are redeployed into other roles. The characteristics associated with support can inform service planning and delivery. Future research should use these factors to develop novel ideas for intervention, such as directly targeting partners or other informal networks with educational or psychosocial interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":9039,"journal":{"name":"BMC Public Health","volume":"24 1","pages":"3284"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20618-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Breastfeeding support interventions are associated with longer breastfeeding duration. Contemporary nationally representative data on breastfeeding support as reported by women in England is lacking. Using English national maternity survey data, we describe sources and modes of breastfeeding support as reported by women who gave birth in 2020; sources of support are compared with earlier maternity surveys (2014, 2016, 2018). We also explore the characteristics associated with source/mode of support in 2020 (n = 4,611).

Methods: Women who breastfed were asked about sources of breastfeeding support (midwife; other health professional; other formal breastfeeding support such as breastfeeding specialist, breastfeeding support group, peer supporter; and partner/friend/relative), how this help was given and whether they would have liked more help from a health professional with breastfeeding. Adjusted risk ratios (aRR) for the association between sociodemographic and pregnancy-related variables and each source/mode of support were estimated using modified Poisson regression.

Results: From 2014 to 2020 support from midwives and other health professionals declined (from 84.0% to 64.7%, and 61.6% to 15.5% respectively) whereas other formal breastfeeding support and informal support from partners/friends/relatives remained constant at 27-31% and 34-38% respectively. The proportion of women who wanted more help with breastfeeding increased from 30% in 2014-2018 to 46% in 2020. In 2020, women most likely to want more help with breastfeeding were nulliparous (aRR = 1.64, 95%CI:1.50-1.79), younger (aRR = 1.21, 95%CI:1.03-1.42) and of Pakistani ethnicity (aRR = 1.30, 95%CI:1.06-1.60). Receiving breastfeeding support over the phone (35%) was more common than via video call (13%) or text message (5%); these percentages varied according to socio-demographic and pregnancy-related factors.

Conclusions: Breastfeeding support has declined in recent years, and did not meet the needs of many women during the pandemic. Planning for a future emergency should include adequate provision of breastfeeding support particularly if staff are redeployed into other roles. The characteristics associated with support can inform service planning and delivery. Future research should use these factors to develop novel ideas for intervention, such as directly targeting partners or other informal networks with educational or psychosocial interventions.

英格兰 Covid-19 大流行期间的母乳喂养支持:全国调查分析。
背景母乳喂养支持干预与延长母乳喂养时间有关。英国妇女报告的母乳喂养支持缺乏具有全国代表性的当代数据。利用英格兰全国产妇调查数据,我们描述了 2020 年分娩妇女所报告的母乳喂养支持的来源和模式;并将支持来源与早期的产妇调查(2014 年、2016 年和 2018 年)进行了比较。我们还探讨了与 2020 年支持来源/模式相关的特征(n = 4,611):我们询问了母乳喂养妇女的母乳喂养支持来源(助产士;其他卫生专业人员;其他正规母乳喂养支持,如母乳喂养专家、母乳喂养支持小组、同伴支持者;以及伴侣/朋友/亲属)、提供帮助的方式以及她们是否希望卫生专业人员在母乳喂养方面提供更多帮助。使用修正的泊松回归法估算了社会人口学变量和妊娠相关变量与每种支持来源/方式之间的调整风险比(aRR):从 2014 年到 2020 年,助产士和其他医疗专业人员提供的支持有所下降(分别从 84.0% 降至 64.7%,61.6% 降至 15.5%),而其他正规母乳喂养支持和来自伴侣/朋友/亲属的非正规支持则保持不变,分别为 27-31% 和 34-38%。希望在母乳喂养方面获得更多帮助的女性比例从 2014-2018 年的 30% 增加到 2020 年的 46%。在 2020 年,最有可能希望在母乳喂养方面获得更多帮助的女性是非一夫一妻制(aRR = 1.64,95%CI:1.50-1.79)、年轻(aRR = 1.21,95%CI:1.03-1.42)和巴基斯坦裔(aRR = 1.30,95%CI:1.06-1.60)。通过电话(35%)获得母乳喂养支持的比例高于通过视频电话(13%)或短信(5%)获得支持的比例;这些比例因社会人口和妊娠相关因素而异:结论:近年来,对母乳喂养的支持有所减少,在大流行期间也无法满足许多妇女的需求。未来的应急计划应包括提供充足的母乳喂养支持,尤其是在工作人员被调配到其他岗位的情况下。与支持相关的特征可以为服务规划和提供提供参考。未来的研究应利用这些因素来开发新的干预思路,例如直接针对伴侣或其他非正式网络进行教育或心理干预。
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
BMC Public Health
BMC Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
2108
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Public Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on the epidemiology of disease and the understanding of all aspects of public health. The journal has a special focus on the social determinants of health, the environmental, behavioral, and occupational correlates of health and disease, and the impact of health policies, practices and interventions on the community.
×
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