AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chatterji, P.
Right arrow Articles by Brooks-Gunn, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chatterji, P.
Right arrow Articles by Brooks-Gunn, J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Access to Care
Right arrow Other Maternal and Infant Health
Right arrow Nutrition/Food
Right arrow Socioeconomic Factors
Right arrow Urban Health
August 2004, Vol 94, No. 8 | American Journal of Public Health 1324-1327
© 2004 American Public Health Association


RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

WIC Participation, Breastfeeding Practices, and Well-Child Care Among Unmarried, Low-Income Mothers

Pinka Chatterji, PhD and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, PhD

Pinka Chatterji is with the Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research, Cambridge Health Alliance/Harvard Medical School, Somerville, Mass. Jeanne Brooks-Gunn is with Teachers College and the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Pinka Chatterji, PhD, Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research at Cambridge Health Alliance/Harvard Medical School, 120 Beacon St, 4th Floor, Somerville, MA 02143 (e-mail: pchatterji{at}charesearch.org).


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 References
 

We estimated the effect of Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) participation in 1999 to 2000 on breastfeeding initiation and duration and well-child care. We applied multivariate regression to a sample of 2136 unmarried, low-income, urban mothers from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. WIC participation was associated with small increases in the probabilities of initiating breastfeeding and having had at least 4 well-child visits since birth—behaviors that benefit infants beyond the newborn period—but not with breastfeeding duration.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 References
 
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides low-income, nutritionally vulnerable pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and young children with nutrient-dense food packages, nutritional counseling (including breastfeeding support), and linkage to medical and social services. Numerous studies indicate that WIC participation during pregnancy is associated with better birth outcomes.1–10 However, with the notable exception of the Rush et al.11 evaluation, little research has focused on the benefits of WIC participation that extend beyond the newborn period.12

We estimated the association between WIC participation and 2 maternal health behaviors that benefit infants—breastfeeding and well-child care. The study used 1999 to 2000 survey data on low-income, unmarried, urban mothers from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. WIC participation may have mixed effects on breastfeeding because of the competing effects of activities that promote breastfeeding and the valuable infant formula provided in food packages. However, we expect that WIC participation is associated with greater use of well-child care because of WIC’s emphasis on medical referrals.


    METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 References
 
Data were from a subsample of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a longitudinal survey of 3712 unmarried couples and 1186 married couples, all of whom had newborn infants at baseline. Respondents resided in 20 cities across the United States. We used data from the baseline survey, which was conducted between June 1999 and October 2000 in the hospital after the child’s birth, and from the first follow-up survey, which was conducted in person or by telephone approximately 12 to 15 months after the birth. To limit the analysis to mothers who were most likely eligible for WIC participation, we limited the sample to 2136 mothers who were unmarried and living at or below 250% of the federal poverty line at the time of the child’s birth.

Our sample included women who were most likely eligible for WIC and who were able to provide fairly complete information for the study. We excluded from the original 4898 respondents: (1) mothers who did not respond to the follow-up survey (n = 533), (2) mothers whose children were aged younger than 12 months or older than 24 months at the time of the follow-up survey (n = 383), (3) mothers with incomes greater than 250% of the poverty line at the time of the child’s birth (n = 1173), (4) mothers married at the time of the birth (n = 378), (5) mothers with multiple births or with missing information on the child’s sex (n = 49), and (6) mothers who were not living with their children by the time of the follow-up survey (n = 65). We also excluded mothers with missing information on any dependent variable (n = 181). However, we did include respondents with missing information on independent variables used in the analysis. For these respondents, missing information was replaced with sample means.

We used probit and ordinary least squares models to analyze the 3 outcomes: (1) whether the mother initiated breastfeeding; (2) the logarithm of the number of weeks the mother breastfed, among those who initiated breastfeeding; and (3) whether the child received at least 4 well-child evaluations during his or her first year. We measured maternal WIC status with a dummy variable indicating whether the mother participated in WIC since the child was born; mothers were not asked about prenatal participation. The models also included detailed information about the child (e.g., age in weeks, low birthweight), the mother (e.g., race/ethnicity, education, age, living arrangements, health behaviors), and the household (e.g., size, health insurance, income, city of residence).

We estimated parsimonious models (which included only demographic covariates) and more fully specified models (which included all of the covariates) to gauge the sensitivity of the WIC participation coefficient to the inclusion of additional factors. Compared with the national data sets used in previous work, our sample included a fairly homogeneous sample of mothers. Nevertheless, we lacked information on the timing of WIC participation, and it is still possible that mothers may have self-selected into WIC along unobserved factors that also affect health investments, which may have led to biased estimates.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 References
 
About half of the mothers reported breastfeeding initiation, and the average duration of breastfeeding was about 18 weeks among mothers who initiated (Table 1Go). Breastfeeding initiation rates in the analysis samples were similar to those in other recent national surveys of low-income women.13,14 Approximately 91% of the mothers reported that their child had at least 4 well-child evaluations since birth, and 86% of the mothers reported WIC participation, which is consistent with WIC’s high participation rate among eligible persons.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1— Sample Characteristics (N = 2136)
 
In both the parsimonious model (Table 2Go, column 1) and the larger model (Table 2Go, column 2), WIC participation was associated with a statistically significant increased probability of breastfeeding initiation of about 0.07 at the sample means (i.e., approximately 52% WIC vs 45% comparison, P < .05). The magnitude of the estimate was almost identical in the parsimonious model and the larger model. We did not find any evidence that WIC participation was associated with breastfeeding duration among mothers who initiated breastfeeding (Table 2Go, columns 3–4), but WIC participation had a statistically significant positive association with the receipt of at least 4 well-child visits (Table 2Go, columns 5–6). Including additional covariates did not reduce this estimate, and the increase in probability was about 0.06 at the sample means (i.e., approximately 93% WIC vs 87% comparison, P < .05).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2— Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Participation and Health Investments
 
The positive association between WIC participation and well-child care and breastfeeding initiation is consistent with the WIC goals of linking participants to medical services and promoting breastfeeding, a health behavior that is associated with numerous benefits for infants.15–19 Previous WIC evaluations indicated that participation improves pregnancy outcomes. These findings add to existing research by suggesting that WIC participation also may be associated with health behaviors that benefit infants beyond the newborn period.


    Acknowledgments
 
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grant R01HD36916), the California Healthcare Foundation, the Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society at the University of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Fund, the Ford Foundation, the Foundation for Child Development, the Fund for New Jersey, the William T. Grant Foundation, the Healthcare Foundation of New Jersey, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Hogg Foundation, the Christina A. Johnson Endeavor Foundation, the Kronkosky Charitable Foundation, the Leon Lowenstein Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the A. L. Mailman Family Foundation, the Charles S. Mott Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Public Policy Institute of California, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the St. David’s Hospital Foundation, the St. Vincent Hospital and Health Services, and the US Department of Health and Human Services. P. Chatterji additionally acknowledges support from a K01 award (AA00032803) from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

J. Brooks-Gunn would like to thank the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Research Network on Child and Family Well-Being and the Center for Health and Well-Being at Princeton University.

Human Participant Protection
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study was reviewed and approved by the Princeton University and the Columbia University internal review boards.


    Footnotes
 
Contributors
Both authors developed the study hypotheses, analyzed the data, and wrote the brief.

Peer Reviewed

Accepted for publication June 18, 2003.


    References
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 References
 
1. Moss NE, Carver K. The effect of WIC and Medicaid on infant mortality in the United States. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1354–1361.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Ahluwalia IB, Hogan V, Grummer-Strawn L, Colville WR, Peterson A. The effect of WIC participation on small-for-gestational-age births: Michigan, 1992. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1374–1377.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3. Heimedinger J, Laird N, Austin JE, Timmer P, Gershoff S. The effects of the WIC program on the growth of infants. Am J Clin Nutr. 1984;40:1250–1257.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4. Kotelchuck M, Schwatrz JB, Anderka M, Finison KS. WIC participation and pregnancy outcomes: Massachusetts Statewide Evaluation Project. Am J Public Health. 1984;74:1086–1092.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

5. Buescher PA, Larson LC, Nelson MD, Lenihan AJ. Prenatal WIC participation can reduce low birth weight and newborn medical costs: a cost benefits analysis of WIC participation in North Carolina. J Am Diet Assoc. 1993;93:163–166.[ISI][Medline]

6. Buescher PA, Horton SJ, Devaney BL, et al. Child participation in WIC: Medicaid costs and use of health care services. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:145–150.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

7. Kennedy ET, Kotelchuck M. The effect of WIC supplemental feeding on birthweight: a case–control analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 1984;40:579–585.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

8. Stockbauer JW. WIC prenatal participation and its relation to pregnancy outcomes in Missouri: a second look. Am J Public Health. 1987;77:813–818.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

9. Schramm WF. WIC prenatal participation and its relationship to newborn Medicaid costs in Missouri: a cost/benefit analysis. Am J Public Health. 1985;75:851–857.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

10. Stockbauer JW. Evaluation of the Missouri WIC program: prenatal components. J Am Diet Assoc. 1986;86:61–67.[ISI][Medline]

11. Rush D, Leighton J, Sloan NL, et al. The National WIC Evaluation: evaluation of the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children, VI, study of infants and children. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988;48:484–511.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

12. Besharov DJ, Germanis P. Evaluating WIC. Eval Rev. 2000;24:123–190.[Abstract]

13. Baydar N, McCann M, Williams R, Vesper E. Final Report: WIC Infant Feeding Practices Study, November 1997. Contract 53-3198-3-003 to the USDA. Washington, DC: Office of Analysis and Evaluation, Food and Consumer Service, US Dept of Agriculture; 1997.

14. Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance, 1997 Full Report. Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1998.

15. Howie PW, Forsyth JS, Ogston SA, et al. Protective effects of breast-feeding against infection. BMJ. 1990;300:11–16.

16. Beaudry M, Dufour R, Marcoux S. Relation between infant feeding and infections during the first six months of life. J Pediatr. 1995;126:191–197.[ISI][Medline]

17. Shu XO, Linet MS, Steinbuch M, et al. Breastfeeding and risk of childhood acute leukemia. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:1765–1772.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

18. Chandra RK. Five-year follow-up of high-risk infants with family history of allergy who were exclusively breast-fed or fed partial whey hydrolysate, soy, and conventional cow’s milk formulas. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1997;24:380–388.[ISI][Medline]

19. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
PediatricsHome page
A. Jacknowitz, D. Novillo, and L. Tiehen
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and Infant Feeding Practices
Pediatrics, February 1, 2007; 119(2): 281 - 289.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Policy Politics Nursing PracticeHome page
C. A. Hanks
Community Empowerment: A Partnership Approach to Public Health Program Implementation
Policy Politics Nursing Practice, November 1, 2006; 7(4): 297 - 306.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Health Education JournalHome page
J Stolzer and P. Zeece
Low income women and physician breastfeeding advice: A regional assessment
Health Education Journal, June 1, 2006; 65(2): 126 - 134.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Public HealthHome page
C. M. Gibson-Davis and J. Brooks-Gunn
Couples' Immigration Status and Ethnicity as Determinants of Breastfeeding
Am J Public Health, April 1, 2006; 96(4): 641 - 646.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
PediatricsHome page
A. S. Ryan and W. Zhou
Lower Breastfeeding Rates Persist Among the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Participants, 1978-2003
Pediatrics, April 1, 2006; 117(4): 1136 - 1146.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Hum LactHome page
K. Wambach, S. H. Campbell, S. L. Gill, J. E. Dodgson, T. C. Abiona, and M. J. Heinig
Clinical Lactation Practice: 20 Years of Evidence
J Hum Lact, August 1, 2005; 21(3): 245 - 258.
[Abstract] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chatterji, P.
Right arrow Articles by Brooks-Gunn, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chatterji, P.
Right arrow Articles by Brooks-Gunn, J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Access to Care
Right arrow Other Maternal and Infant Health
Right arrow Nutrition/Food
Right arrow Socioeconomic Factors
Right arrow Urban Health


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Public Health Association