10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What works to protect, promote and support breastfeeding on a large scale: A review of reviews

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Globally women continue to face substantial barriers to breastfeeding. The 2016 Lancet Breastfeeding Series identified key barriers and reviewed effective interventions that address them. The present study updates the evidence base since 2016 using a review of reviews approach. Searches were implemented using the Epistomenikos database. One hundred and fifteen reviews of interventions were identified and assessed for quality and risk of bias. Over half of reviews (53%) were high‐ or moderate quality, with the remaining low or critically low quality due to weaknesses in assessment of bias. A large portion of studies addressed high‐income and upper‐middle income settings, (41%), and a majority (63%) addressed health systems, followed by community and family settings (39%). Findings from reviews continue to strengthen the evidence base for effective interventions that improve breastfeeding outcomes across all levels of the social‐ecological model, including supportive workplace policies; implementation of the Baby‐Friendly Hospital Initiative, skin to skin care, kangaroo mother care, and cup feeding in health settings; and the importance of continuity of care and support in community and family settings, via home visits delivered by CHWs, supported by fathers', grandmothers' and community involvement. Studies disproportionately focus on health systems in high income and upper‐middle income settings. There is insufficient attention to policy and structural interventions, the workplace and there is a need for rigorous assessment of multilevel interventions. Evidence from the past 5 years demonstrates the need to build on well‐established knowledge to scale up breastfeeding protection, promotion and support programmes.

          Abstract

          This study updates the evidence base on interventions that address breastfeeding barriers since 2016 using a review of reviews approach. Effective interventions improve breastfeeding outcomes across all levels of the social‐ecological model, but research disproportionately focuses on health systems in high income and upper‐middle income settings and lacks adequate attention to policy and structural interventions, the workplace, and multilevel interventions. Findings demonstrate the need to build on well‐established knowledge to scale up breastfeeding protection, promotion, and support programs.

          Key messages

          • Women globally continue to face barriers to breastfeeding. This review assessed effective interventions that address these barriers in the past 5 years.

          • Studies disproportionately focus on high income and upper‐middle income settings, and on health systems, and on single settings.

          • There is insufficient attention to policy and structural interventions, and there is a need for rigorous assessment of multilevel interventions.

          • Research in the past 5 years strengthens the evidence base for effective breastfeeding interventions across all levels of the social‐ecological model.

          • There is an urgent need to implement interventions that combine established and effective measures to improve breastfeeding outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

          The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Why invest, and what it will take to improve breastfeeding practices?

            Despite its established benefits, breastfeeding is no longer a norm in many communities. Multifactorial determinants of breastfeeding need supportive measures at many levels, from legal and policy directives to social attitudes and values, women's work and employment conditions, and health-care services to enable women to breastfeed. When relevant interventions are delivered adequately, breastfeeding practices are responsive and can improve rapidly. The best outcomes are achieved when interventions are implemented concurrently through several channels. The marketing of breastmilk substitutes negatively affects breastfeeding: global sales in 2014 of US$44·8 billion show the industry's large, competitive claim on infant feeding. Not breastfeeding is associated with lower intelligence and economic losses of about $302 billion annually or 0·49% of world gross national income. Breastfeeding provides short-term and long-term health and economic and environmental advantages to children, women, and society. To realise these gains, political support and financial investment are needed to protect, promote, and support breastfeeding.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants.

              Mother-infant separation post birth is common. In standard hospital care, newborn infants are held wrapped or dressed in their mother's arms, placed in open cribs or under radiant warmers. Skin-to-skin contact (SSC) begins ideally at birth and should last continually until the end of the first breastfeeding. SSC involves placing the dried, naked baby prone on the mother's bare chest, often covered with a warm blanket. According to mammalian neuroscience, the intimate contact inherent in this place (habitat) evokes neuro-behaviors ensuring fulfillment of basic biological needs. This time frame immediately post birth may represent a 'sensitive period' for programming future physiology and behavior.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ctomori1@jh.edu
                Journal
                Matern Child Nutr
                Matern Child Nutr
                10.1111/(ISSN)1740-8709
                MCN
                Maternal & Child Nutrition
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1740-8695
                1740-8709
                22 March 2022
                May 2022
                : 18
                : Suppl 3 , What will it take to increase breastfeeding? ( doiID: 10.1111/mcn.v18.S3 )
                : e13344
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Baltimore Maryland USA
                [ 2 ] Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore Maryland USA
                [ 3 ] Department of Health Universidad Iberoamericana Mexico City Mexico
                [ 4 ] International Food Policy Research Institute Delhi India
                [ 5 ] Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences Yale School of Public Health New Haven Rhode Island USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence Cecília Tomori, Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.

                Email: ctomori1@ 123456jh.edu

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4235-1821
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9416-8039
                Article
                MCN13344
                10.1111/mcn.13344
                9113479
                35315573
                9ec4a70e-60f5-4f4c-8534-7b43c431b1f7
                © 2022 The Authors. Maternal & Child Nutrition published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 16 February 2022
                : 08 October 2021
                : 17 February 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 7, Pages: 12, Words: 6264
                Funding
                Funded by: World Health Organization , doi 10.13039/100004423;
                Categories
                Supplement Article
                What Will It Take to Increase Breastfeeding?
                Supplement Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                May 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.6 mode:remove_FC converted:17.05.2022

                breastfeeding,breastfeeding promotion,breastfeeding support,community‐based,programme components,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article