辅助喂养方法与窒息风险:系统综述。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Lia Correia, Ana R Sousa, Carolina Capitão, Ana R Pedro
{"title":"辅助喂养方法与窒息风险:系统综述。","authors":"Lia Correia, Ana R Sousa, Carolina Capitão, Ana R Pedro","doi":"10.1002/jpn3.12298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There are two main complementary feeding (CF) approaches: traditional spoon-feeding (TSF) and baby-led weaning (BLW). Many parents and healthcare professionals have concerns about the risk of choking associated with BLW. Since asphyxia is one of infants' main causes of death, this study aims to understand the influence of the CF approach adopted by caregivers on infants' risk of choking. A systematic review was performed. The search was conducted through PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. We included randomized controlled trials or observational studies published between January 2010 and November 2023, with a clear definition of the intervention and directly assessing the risk of choking. After the selection procedure, 7 of the 165 studies initially identified were included. No study reported statistically significant differences in the risk of choking between babies following BLW, baby-led introduction to solids (BLISS), and TSF. In five studies, although not statistically significant, infants in the TSF group had more choking episodes than those in the BLW or BLISS groups. The risk of choking does not seem to be associated with the CF approach. Instead, it may be related to the familiarity of the baby with each texture and the parent's understanding of the information about how to minimize the risk of choking. Recall bias may be present in all included studies. Advice on how to modify foods to make them safer needs to be clearer and reinforced to all parents.</p>","PeriodicalId":16694,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition","volume":" ","pages":"934-942"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complementary feeding approaches and risk of choking: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Lia Correia, Ana R Sousa, Carolina Capitão, Ana R Pedro\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jpn3.12298\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There are two main complementary feeding (CF) approaches: traditional spoon-feeding (TSF) and baby-led weaning (BLW). Many parents and healthcare professionals have concerns about the risk of choking associated with BLW. Since asphyxia is one of infants' main causes of death, this study aims to understand the influence of the CF approach adopted by caregivers on infants' risk of choking. A systematic review was performed. The search was conducted through PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. We included randomized controlled trials or observational studies published between January 2010 and November 2023, with a clear definition of the intervention and directly assessing the risk of choking. After the selection procedure, 7 of the 165 studies initially identified were included. No study reported statistically significant differences in the risk of choking between babies following BLW, baby-led introduction to solids (BLISS), and TSF. In five studies, although not statistically significant, infants in the TSF group had more choking episodes than those in the BLW or BLISS groups. The risk of choking does not seem to be associated with the CF approach. Instead, it may be related to the familiarity of the baby with each texture and the parent's understanding of the information about how to minimize the risk of choking. Recall bias may be present in all included studies. Advice on how to modify foods to make them safer needs to be clearer and reinforced to all parents.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"934-942\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jpn3.12298\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jpn3.12298","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

辅食喂养(CF)方法主要有两种:传统的勺喂法(TSF)和婴儿指导断奶法(BLW)。许多家长和医护人员都担心婴儿断奶会有窒息的风险。由于窒息是婴儿死亡的主要原因之一,本研究旨在了解护理人员采用的婴儿辅食喂养方法对婴儿窒息风险的影响。本研究进行了系统性回顾。我们通过 PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Science 数据库进行了检索。我们纳入了 2010 年 1 月至 2023 年 11 月间发表的随机对照试验或观察性研究,这些研究明确定义了干预措施并直接评估了窒息风险。经过筛选后,初步确定的 165 项研究中有 7 项被纳入。没有一项研究报告了婴儿在接受基本母乳喂养、婴儿引导固体食物(BLISS)和 TSF 后窒息风险的统计学差异。在五项研究中,尽管没有统计学意义,但 TSF 组婴儿的窒息发生率高于 BLW 或 BLISS 组婴儿。窒息风险似乎与 CF 方法无关。相反,这可能与婴儿对每种质地的熟悉程度以及家长对如何将窒息风险降至最低的信息的理解程度有关。所有纳入的研究都可能存在回忆偏差。关于如何改变食物使其更安全的建议需要向所有家长更加明确和强化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Complementary feeding approaches and risk of choking: A systematic review.

There are two main complementary feeding (CF) approaches: traditional spoon-feeding (TSF) and baby-led weaning (BLW). Many parents and healthcare professionals have concerns about the risk of choking associated with BLW. Since asphyxia is one of infants' main causes of death, this study aims to understand the influence of the CF approach adopted by caregivers on infants' risk of choking. A systematic review was performed. The search was conducted through PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. We included randomized controlled trials or observational studies published between January 2010 and November 2023, with a clear definition of the intervention and directly assessing the risk of choking. After the selection procedure, 7 of the 165 studies initially identified were included. No study reported statistically significant differences in the risk of choking between babies following BLW, baby-led introduction to solids (BLISS), and TSF. In five studies, although not statistically significant, infants in the TSF group had more choking episodes than those in the BLW or BLISS groups. The risk of choking does not seem to be associated with the CF approach. Instead, it may be related to the familiarity of the baby with each texture and the parent's understanding of the information about how to minimize the risk of choking. Recall bias may be present in all included studies. Advice on how to modify foods to make them safer needs to be clearer and reinforced to all parents.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
13.80%
发文量
467
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: ​The Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition (JPGN) provides a forum for original papers and reviews dealing with pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition, including normal and abnormal functions of the alimentary tract and its associated organs, including the salivary glands, pancreas, gallbladder, and liver. Particular emphasis is on development and its relation to infant and childhood nutrition.
×
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