Search

Introduction: Breastfeeding has health benefits for infants and mothers, yet the UK has low rates with marked social inequalities. The Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA) feasibility study demonstrated the acceptability of a proactive, assets-based, woman-centred peer support intervention, inclusive of all feeding types, to mothers, peer supporters and maternity services. The ABA-feed study aims to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the ABA-feed intervention compared with usual care in first-time mothers in a full trial., Methods and Analysis: A multicentre randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation to explore clinical and cost-effectiveness, and embedded process evaluation to explore differences in implementation between sites. We aim to recruit 2730 primiparous women, regardless of feeding intention. Women will be recruited at 17 sites from antenatal clinics and various remote methods including social media and invitations from midwives and health visitors. Women will be randomised at a ratio of 1.43:1 to receive either ABA-feed intervention or usual care. A train the trainer model will be used to train local Infant Feeding Coordinators to train existing peer supporters to become 'infant feeding helpers' in the ABA-feed intervention. Infant feeding outcomes will be collected at 3 days, and 8, 16 and 24 weeks postbirth. The primary outcome will be any breastfeeding at 8 weeks postbirth. Secondary outcomes will include breastfeeding initiation, any and exclusive breastfeeding, formula feeding practices, anxiety, social support and healthcare utilisation. All analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee. Trial results will be available through open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant meetings and conferences., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN17395671., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PH is a member of Scottish Government Peer Support for Breastfeeding Advisory Group and Scottish Infant Feeding Advisory Group; JS declares self-employed work as a midwife expert witness; all other authors declare no relevant completing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objectives: Few women in industrialized countries achieve the World Health Organization's recommendation to breastfeed exclusively for 6 months. Governments are increasingly seeking new interventions to address this problem, including the use of incentives. The goal of this study was to assess the evidence regarding the effectiveness of incentive interventions, delivered within or outside of health care settings, to individuals and/or their families seeking to increase and sustain breastfeeding in the first 6 months after birth., Methods: Searches of electronic databases, reference lists, and grey literature were conducted to identify relevant reports of published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. All study designs published in English, which met our definition of incentives and that were from a developed country, were eligible for inclusion. Abstract and full-text article review with sequential data extraction were conducted by 2 independent authors., Results: Sixteen full reports were included in the review. The majority evaluated multicomponent interventions of varying frequency, intensity, and duration. Incentives involved providing access to breast pumps, gifts, vouchers, money, food packages, and help with household tasks, but little consensus in findings was revealed. The lack of high-quality, randomized controlled trials identified by this review and the multicomponent nature of the interventions prohibited meta-analysis., Conclusions: This review found that the overall effect of providing incentives for breastfeeding compared with no incentives is unclear due to study heterogeneity and the variation in study quality. Further evidence on breastfeeding incentives offered to women is required to understand the possible effects of these interventions., (Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: Implementation of the Baby Friendly Health Initiative (BFHI) is associated with increases in breastfeeding initiation and duration of exclusive breastfeeding and 'any' breastfeeding. However, implementation of the BFHI is challenging., Aim: To identify and synthesise health care staff perceptions of the WHO/UNICEF BFHI and identify facilitators and barriers for implementation., Method: Seven qualitative studies, published between 2003 and 2013 were analysed using meta-ethnographic synthesis., Findings: Three overarching themes were identified. First the BFHI was viewed variously as a 'desirable innovation or an unfriendly imposition'. Participants were passionate about supporting breastfeeding and improving consistency in the information provided. This view was juxtaposed against the belief that BFHI represents an imposition on women's choices, and is a costly exercise for little gain in breastfeeding rates. The second theme highlighted cultural and organisational constraints and obstacles to BFHI implementation including resource issues, entrenched staff practices and staff rationalisation of non-compliance. Theme three captured a level of optimism and enthusiasm amongst participants who could identify a dedicated and credible leader to lead the BFHI change process. Collaborative engagement with all key stakeholders was crucial., Conclusions: Health care staff hold variant beliefs and attitudes towards BFHI, which can help or hinder the implementation process. The introduction of the BFHI at a local level requires detailed planning, extensive collaboration, and an enthusiastic and committed leader to drive the change process. This synthesis has highlighted the importance of thinking more creatively about the translation of this global policy into effective change at the local level., (Crown Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)