4.2 Article

Maternal Response to Two Electric Breast Pumps

期刊

BREASTFEEDING MEDICINE
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 18-24

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/bfm.2008.0133

关键词

-

资金

  1. Playtex Products, Inc., Westport, CT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objective: Mechanical characteristics of breast pumps have been shown to influence milk extraction and hormone release in laboratory settings. However, few studies evaluate impact of differences in pump design on long-term breastfeeding success. This study evaluated the impact of a novel pump design on milk extraction, milk fat content, maternal hormone response, maternal satisfaction, long-term milk production, and duration of breastfeeding following return to the workforce. Design and Methods: Healthy women intending to return to work or school and to breastfeed exclusively for <= 4 months were enrolled in late pregnancy (n = 62). Prolactin response to pumping (n = 30) and changes in 24-hour milk volume during a 2-week stimulation protocol (n = 59) were measured in women randomly assigned to a novel (Embrace (R), Playtex, Westport, CT) or standard (Pump In Style (R), Medela, Baar, Switzerland) electric breast pump. Milk extraction efficiency (n = 58) and maternal ranking of pump performance (n = 56) were measured using a crossover design. Mothers selected one pump to keep and were contacted (n = 55) at 6 months postpartum to determine breastfeeding behavior. Results: Prolactin response was greater (p = 0.005) with the novel pump. Milk extraction efficiency was greater (p = 0.001) with the standard pump. Stimulation of 24-hour milk production did not differ between pumps. Women were equally likely to select the two pumps. Feeding behavior at 6 months was not related to pump choice. Conclusions: The test pumps stimulate the two arms of the homeostatic mechanism governing milk output (endocrine stimulation and degree of breast emptying) to different degrees, yet have comparable impacts on lactation performance over time.

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

4.2
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