4.3 Article

Adherence with early infant feeding and complementary feeding guidelines in the Cork BASELINE Birth Cohort Study

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
卷 18, 期 15, 页码 2864-2873

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S136898001500018X

关键词

Breast-feeding; Infant formula; Complementary feeding; Prospective birth cohort

资金

  1. National Children's Research Centre (NCRC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo describe adherence with infant feeding and complementary feeding guidelines.DesignProspective study of infant feeding and complementary feeding practices were collected as part of the Cork BASELINE Birth Cohort Study.SettingCork, Ireland.SubjectsData are described for the 823 infants for whom a diary was completed.ResultsBreast-feeding was initiated in 81 % of infants, and 34 %, 14 % and 1 % of infants were exclusively breast-fed at hospital discharge, 2 and 6 months, respectively. Stage one infant formula decreased from 71 % at 2 months to 13 % at 12 months. The majority of infants (79 %) were introduced to solids between 17 and 26 weeks and 18 % were given solid foods before 17 weeks. Mothers of infants who commenced complementary feeding prior to 17 weeks were younger (298 v. 315 years; P<0001) and more likely to smoke (18 v. 8 %; P=0004). The first food was usually baby rice (69 %), infant breakfast cereals (14 %) or fruit/vegetables (14 %). Meals were generally home-made (49 %), cereal-based (35 %), manufactured (10 %), dairy (3 %) and dessert-based (3 %). The median gap between the first-second, second-third, third-fourth and fourth-fifth new foods was 4, 2, 2 and 2 d, respectively.ConclusionsWe present the largest prospective cohort study to date on early infant feeding in Ireland. The rate of breast-feeding is low by international norms. Most mothers introduce complementary foods between 4 and 6 months with lengthy gaps between each new food/food product. There is a high prevalence of exposure to infant breakfast cereals, which are composite foods, among the first foods introduced.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据