4.5 Article

Breastfeeding is protective to diabetes risk in young adults: a longitudinal study

期刊

ACTA DIABETOLOGICA
卷 52, 期 5, 页码 837-844

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s00592-014-0690-z

关键词

Breastfeeding; Duration; Diabetes; Young adults

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia [631507, 1026598]
  2. National Heart Foundation of Australia [G07B3135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim It is unclear whether any breastfeeding or a certain duration of breastfeeding is protective against the development of diabetes in adult offspring. Methods We followed a sub-sample of 3,595 offspring born in the Mater Hospital in Brisbane, Australia between 1981 and 1983 and for whom we had doctor diagnosed self-reported diabetes at age 21 years and maternal reported duration of breastfeeding at 6-month post-natal follow-up. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine the independent associations of duration of breastfeeding (never breastfeed, breastfed < 4 months and breastfed a parts per thousand yen4 months) with offspring diabetes by age 21 years. Results Of 3,595 young adults, 45 (1.25 %) developed diabetes by age 21 years. The odds ratio of experiencing diabetes was 0.58 (95 % CI 0.29, 1.16) for offspring who were breastfed < 4 months, and it was 0.29 (95 % CI 0.13, 0.63), for offspring who were breastfed at least 4 months compared to the never breastfed offspring. Adjusting for potential confounding and mediating factors including maternal age, education, pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI), smoking, offspring sports, TV and their BMI at 21 years did not substantially alter this association. Conclusions Findings of this study suggest that infants who are breastfed for longer than 4 months have a substantial protective effect against the development of diabetes in young adulthood, which is independent of current BMI. Promoting breastfeeding for a minimum of 4 months may be a useful strategy for the prevention of diabetes among young adults.

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

4.5
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