4.3 Article

Intake of water, herbal teas and non-breast milks during the first month of life: Associated factors and impact on breastfeeding duration

期刊

EARLY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
卷 84, 期 5, 页码 305-310

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2007.08.001

关键词

breastfeeding; bottle feeding; epidemiologic factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The use of non-breast milks seems to cause more harm to the child's health than the isolated introduction of water/herbal teas. Aims: Study the factors associated with introduction of water/herbal teas or non-breast milks during the first month of life and determine the impact of this supplementation on breastfeeding duration. Study design: Nested cross-sectional study. Subjects: 220 mother-infant pairs contacted in the maternity ward, at 7 days and at the end of 1, 2, 4, and 6 months. Outcome measures: Introduction of water/herbal teas or non-breast milks in the first month of life based on data collected during a home visit 30 days after delivery. Results: Introduction of water/herbal teas was associated with maternal age <20 years (prevalence ratio=1.55; 95%Cl 1.14-2.09), <6 prenatal consultations (1.48; 1.09-2.01), cohabitation with maternal grandmother (1.51; 1.10-2.10), and poor latch-on at 30 days (1.87; 1.35-2.58). Introduction of non-breast milks was associated with breastfeeding of previous children for <6 months (3.18; 1.18-8.58), cesarean (1.92; 1.07-3.44), poor latch-on at 30 days (2.82; 1.55-5.11), use of pacifier at 7 days (2.75; 1.38-5.48), introduction of herbal teas in the first 7 days (2.75; 1.15-4.15) and breast engorgement at 7 days (2.19; 1.01-3.16). Introduction of non-breast milks negatively influenced breastfeeding duration (p<0.001); this was not observed with water/herbal teas (p=0.277). Conclusion: Priority should be given to preventing the early introduction on non-breast milks, especially in mother-infant pairs with associated risk factors. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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