Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32245371›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Are we doing enough? Improved breastfeeding practices at 14 weeks but challenges of non-initiation and early cessation of breastfeeding remain: findings of two consecutive cross-sectional surveys in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

C Horwood, L Haskins, I Engebretsen, C Connolly, A Coutsoudis, L Spies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

C HorwoodCentre for Rural Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. horwoodc@ukzn.ac.za.
L HaskinsCentre for Rural Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
I EngebretsenCentre for International Health, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
C ConnollyCentre for Rural Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
A CoutsoudisDepartment of Paediatrics & Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal Durban, Durban, South Africa.
L SpiesDepartment of Health, Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Funding

ELMA Foundation 14-F0014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Initiative for breastfeeding support (KIBS) was a multipronged intervention to support the initiation and sustaining of breastfeeding, implemented between 2014 and 2017. We present results of two surveys conducted before and after KIBS implementation to assess changes in infant feeding practices in KZN over this time period.

methodsTwo cross-sectional surveys were conducted in primary health care clinics. Multistage stratified random sampling was used to select clinics and participants. Sample size was calculated to provide district estimates of 14-week exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) rates at baseline (KIBS1), and provincial estimates at endpoint (KIBS2). At KIBS1 the sample required was nine participating clinics in each of 11 districts (99 clinics) with 369 participants per district (N = 4059), and at KIBS2 was 30 clinics in KZN with 30 participants per clinic (N = 900). All caregivers aged ≥15 years attending the clinic with infants aged 13- < 16 weeks were eligible to participate. Data was collected using structured interviews on android devices. Multi-variable logistic regression was used to adjust odds ratios for differences between time points.

resultsAt KIBS1 (May2014- March2015), 4172 interviews were conducted with carers, of whom 3659 (87.6%) were mothers. At KIBS2 (January-August 2017), 929 interviews were conducted which included 788 (84.8%) mothers. Among all carers the proportion exclusively breastfeeding was 44.6 and 50.5% (p = 0.1) at KIBS1 and KIBS2 respectively, but greater improvements in EBF were shown among mothers (49.9 vs 59.1: p = 0.02). There were reductions in mixed breastfeeding among all infants (23.2% vs 16.3%; p = 0.016). Although there was no change in the proportion of carers who reported not breastfeeding (31.9% vs 32.8%; p = 0.2), the duration of breastfeeding among mothers who had stopped breastfeeding was longer at KIBS2 compared to KIBS1 (p = 0.0015). Mothers who had returned to work or school were less likely to be breastfeeding (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.76; 95% CI 3.1-4.6), as were HIV positive mothers (AOR 2.1; 95% CI 1.7-2.6).

conclusionDespite improvements to exclusive breastfeeding, failure to initiate and sustain breastfeeding is a challenge to achieving optimal breastfeeding practices. Interventions are required to address these challenges and support breastfeeding particularly among working mothers and HIV positive mothers.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBreast FeedingCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfantLogistic ModelsMothersMultivariate AnalysisOdds RatioSouth AfricaSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultBreastfeedingChild healthExclusive breastfeedingHIV infectionInfant feedingRisk factorsSouth AfricaWorking women

Identifiers

PMID32245371
PMCPMC7118904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.