| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE |
Maria Luiza G. Braun is with the School of Nutrition, Instituto Metodista de Educação e Cultura, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and the Department of Health, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Elsa R. J. Giugliani is with Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil. Maria Emília Mattos Soares is with Hospital Fêmina de Porto Alegre, Brazil. Camila Giugliani, Andréa Proenço de Oliveira, and Claudia Maria Machado Danelon are students at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Maria L. G. Braun, Rua 24 de Outubro, 1121/904, 90510–003, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil (e-mail: lubraun{at}cpovo.net).
 |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
 TOP INTRODUCTION METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Despite the abundance of studies evaluating each of the 10 steps or a combination of them, information on the impact of BFHI on the duration of breastfeeding is limited. Recently, a large randomized controlled trial including 31 hospitals in Belarus showed that an intervention based on BFHI principles increased breastfeeding rates, especially exclusive breastfeeding.2 The present study reproduced these results using a less complex study design.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
The first cohort was formed of a sample of 187 babies born in 1994. The second cohort included 250 babies born in 1999, 2 years after BFHI implementation. In both cohorts, all babies born after the starting date of the studies were included, provided they fulfilled the criteria of being healthy nontwins, with birthweight of 2500 g or greater, who had initiated breastfeeding, and whose mothers lived in Porto Alegre. Newborns or mothers who presented any health problem that could make breastfeeding more difficult or impossible were excluded from the study (for example, HIV–positive mothers, children with malformations, and children requiring intensive care).
After giving informed consent, mothers were interviewed at the maternity ward and in their homes at the end of the first, second, fourth, and sixth months postpartum. In the 1999 cohort, the second- and fourth-month visits were replaced with telephone interviews whenever possible. Mothers were asked about the usual diet of the children and the time of introduction of any food. Babies receiving only breast milk, with no other liquid or solid, were considered to be receiving exclusive breastfeeding; those receiving breast milk, regardless of supplements, were considered to be receiving breastfeeding.3
The data were analyzed using Epi Info software 6.04b (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga) and the statistical package SPSS 10.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill). Kaplan–Meyer survival curves of breastfeeding and exclusive breastfeeding were plotted for the 2 cohorts. Cox regression model interaction was used to test the interaction between BFHI implementation and per capita income (lower half vs upper half). The log-rank test was used to calculate the significance level of differences between curves.
The odds for not breastfeeding exclusively at 1 month and discontinuation of any breastfeeding at 4 months among children born before the BFHI, compared with children born after the BFHI, were calculated using Cox regression analysis. The variables included in the model were those whose prevalences differed (P < .2) between the 2 cohorts based on a 
2 test.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Table 1
shows the characteristics of the 2 cohorts studied. They differed (P < .2) in terms of age and marital status of the mother, sex of the newborn, and per capita family income.
|
show that those exposed to the BFHI were breastfed significantly longer than those born before the BFHI. The median duration of exclusive breastfeeding was 2 months for children born after the BFHI and 1 month for those born before the BFHI.
|
A comparison of the survival curves for breastfeeding according to per capita family income shows that the BFHI was more effective among underprivileged children (interaction term: P = .05). The same was not true for exclusive breastfeeding (interaction term: P = .6) (Figures 1
–3).
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Despite the occurrence of an increase in breastfeeding rates after BFHI implementation, the frequencies of breastfeeding in the first 6 months of life, especially those of exclusive breastfeeding, are still low. The BFHI in itself appears not to be sufficient to maintain high rates of breastfeeding and exclusive breastfeeding over this period. Interventions made only at 1 moment (such as in the maternity ward) and based solely in hospitals may increase the rates but will have only a short-term effect unless complementary strategies are incorporated.5 Within the BFHI itself, it is possible to obtain more sustainable results through the strengthening of step 10, which seeks the establishment of support groups for mothers who breastfeed after discharge from the maternity ward.
As this study evaluated breastfeeding rates in 2 different periods, it is not possible to conclude that BFHI caused an increase in rates. Because breastfeeding rates in Brazil have gradually increased in the last 20 years, it is possible that a higher national awareness contributed to the increase in rates. Nevertheless, during the time between the 2 cohorts (1994–1999), no other major actions were carried out. Also, a previous study showed that between 1987 and 1994 the rates of breastfeeding in the population under study did not change.6 This reinforces the concept that the BFHI was probably the main factor for the improvement of breastfeeding rates. It is important to mention that Brazil did not experience any substantial change in economics, female employment, or related legislation that could explain the results.
In conclusion, the present study shows a significant increase in breastfeeding rates, especially exclusive breastfeeding, after BFHI implementation. Nonetheless, in order for breastfeeding to become universal, it is necessary to strengthen the BFHI and to develop other interventions aimed at protecting, promoting, and supporting breastfeeding practices.
|
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Human Participant Protection
This study was approved by the research and ethics committee of Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
M. L. G. Braun contributed to the conception and design of the study, collection and analysis of data, and writing of the brief. E. R. J. Giugliani contributed to the conception and design of the study, analysis of data, and writing of the brief. M. E. M. Soares, C. Giugliani, A. P. de Oliveira, and C. M. M. Danelon. contributed to the conception and design of the study and collection of data.
Accepted for publication February 11, 2003.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
2. Kramer MS, Chalmers B, Hodnett ED, et al. Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial (PROBIT): a randomized trial in the Republic of Belarus. JAMA.2001;285:413–420.
3. World Health Organization, Division of Diarrhoeal and Acute Respiratory Disease Control. Indicators for Assessing Breastfeeding Practices: Report of an Informal Meeting, 11–12 June 1991, Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1991. WHO/CDD/SER/91.14.
4. World Health Organization, Collaborative Study Team on the Role of Breastfeeding on the Prevention of Infant Mortality. Effect of breastfeeding on infant and child mortality due to infectious diseases in less developed countries: a pooled analysis. Lancet.2000;355:451–455.[ISI][Medline]
5. Giugliani ERJ. Increasing Rates of Exclusive Breastfeeding. Technical Consultation on Infant and Child Feeding. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2000.
6. Kummer SC, Giugliani ER, Susin LO, et al. Evolution of breastfeeding pattern. Rev Saude Publica. 2000;34:143–148.[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Kronborg, M. Vaeth, J. Olsen, and I. Harder Health visitors and breastfeeding support: influence of knowledge and self-efficacy Eur J Public Health, June 1, 2008; 18(3): 283 - 288. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Merewood, B. Patel, K. N. Newton, L. P. MacAuley, L. B. Chamberlain, P. Francisco, and S. D. Mehta Breastfeeding Duration Rates and Factors Affecting Continued Breastfeeding Among Infants Born at an Inner-City US Baby-Friendly Hospital J Hum Lact, May 1, 2007; 23(2): 157 - 164. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. D. de Oliveira, E. R. J. Giugliani, L. C. do Espirito Santo, M. C. T. Franca, E. M. L. Weigert, C. V. F. Kohler, and A. L. de Lourenzi Bonilha Effect of intervention to improve breastfeeding technique on the frequency of exclusive breastfeeding and lactation-related problems. J Hum Lact, August 1, 2006; 22(3): 315 - 321. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B L Philipp and A Radford Baby-Friendly: snappy slogan or standard of care? Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., March 1, 2006; 91(2): F145 - F149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Merten, J. Dratva, and U. Ackermann-Liebrich Do Baby-Friendly Hospitals Influence Breastfeeding Duration on a National Level? Pediatrics, November 1, 2005; 116(5): e702 - e708. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Merewood, S. D. Mehta, L. B. Chamberlain, B. L. Philipp, and H. Bauchner Breastfeeding Rates in US Baby-Friendly Hospitals: Results of a National Survey Pediatrics, September 1, 2005; 116(3): 628 - 634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent References J Hum Lact, February 1, 2004; 20(1): 106 - 112. [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
