3.9 Article

From Maine to Mississippi - Hospital distribution of formula sample packs along the eastern seaboard

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRICS & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE
卷 162, 期 9, 页码 823-827

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.162.9.823

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Health and Human Services [RFQ 06T060169]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To determine the proportion of hospitals distributing free infant formula sample packs in 21 eastern states and the District of Columbia, to investigate any regional trends or timelines associated with discontinuation of formula pack distribution, and to catalog in 2 states the take-home items given to new mothers in addition to, or instead of, formula sample packs. Design: Data were collected between October 1, 2006, and March 31, 2007, over the telephone by research assistants using a prepared script. We determined whether hospitals distributed a formula company-sponsored diaper discharge bag to new mothers. Setting: Our sample comprised all mainland states in the US Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration regions 1 through 4. Participants: We contacted 1295 hospitals in 21 eastern states and the District of Columbia. Intervention: Hospital distribution of ail infant formula sample pack. Main Outcome Measure: The proportion of hospitals that distributed formula sample packs. Results: Ninety-four percent of hospitals distributed formula sample packs. Regional trends were evident. The proportion of distributing hospitals ranged from 70.4% (New Hampshire) to 100.0% (4 states-New Jersey, Maryland, Mississippi, and West Virginia-and Washington, DC). The proportion of hospitals that do not distribute sample packs has risen significantly between 1979 and 2006 (P<.01). Conclusion: Most eastern US hospitals distributed formula sample packs to new mothers at hospital discharge, contrary to recommendations from the major medical organizations, but the practice is changing significantly.

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

3.9
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