It's more than just luck: A qualitative exploration of breastfeeding in rural Australia

Healthcare providers' perceived barriers to providing breastfeeding support in Northwest rural China

BACKGROUND

Healthcare providers play important roles in supporting breastfeeding. Although there has been insufficient actual breastfeeding support from healthcare providers in China, little research has been conducted to understand Chinese healthcare providers' perceived barriers to providing breastfeeding support, especially in rural China. This study aims to identify these perceived barriers to providing breastfeeding support in Northwestern rural China.

METHODS

This study was conducted during the period from March 2018 to December 2018. Forty-one healthcare providers were recruited through purposive sampling in two rural counties in Northwest China that are in close proximity to each other and share similar demographic features. Participants included obstetrician-gynecologists, midwives, nurses, "village doctors", and township and village maternal and child health workers. Qualitative data were collected through one-on-one in-depth semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. Transcripts were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Analysis of interview data resulted in four themes that the participants perceived as barriers to supporting breastfeeding: (1) lack of medical resources, within which inadequate staffing, and lack of financial incentives were discussed, (2) lack of clear and specific responsibility assignment, within which no one takes the lead, and mutual buck-passing were discussed, (3) healthcare providers' lack of relevant expertise, within which lack of knowledge and skills, and low prestige of village healthcare providers were discussed, (4) difficulties in accessing mothers, within which medical equipment shortages reduce services utilization, mothers' housing situation, mothers' mobility, and cultural barriers were discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified HCPs perceived barriers to providing breastfeeding support. Unique to China's Tri-Level Healthcare System, challenges like staffing and financial incentives are hard to swiftly tackle. Recommendations include mHealth enhancement and clarified responsibilities with incentives and tailored training. Further research is crucial to evaluate these strategies in rural Northwestern China and comparable underdeveloped areas nationwide.

Breastfeeding Disparities Among Rural Breastfeeding Dyads in High-Income Countries: A Scoping Study

Background/Objective: Low breastfeeding initiation and duration of exclusivity put rural mothers and infants at risk for morbidity and mortality and significant economic costs. This scoping study aimed to identify determinants of breastfeeding disparities among rural dyads in high-income countries and their modifiable factors. Methods: The Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework was used. A literature review was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL Complete, Embase, and APA PsycInfo databases to identify studies related to rural breastfeeding that met criteria published between 2012 and 2022. Results: Twenty-five studies were included. Rural mothers from high-income countries are more likely to be younger, be unmarried, have lower educational attainment, have lower socioeconomic status, smoke, and have a higher prepregnancy body mass index than their urban counterparts. Rural mothers across White, Black, and Hispanic racial and ethnic groups have significantly lower breastfeeding rates compared to urban mothers. Maternal physiological preparedness, breastfeeding problems, lifestyle choices, support from family, evidence-based practice, workplace support, and policy development and implementation for breastfeeding promotion were identified as modifiable factors. Interventions using technology are an emerging field to overcome rurality. Conclusions: Although breastfeeding disparities are prevalent in rural dyads, the basic challenges mothers face when breastfeeding are universal, despite geographical locations in high-income countries. More specific support needs to be provided for breastfeeding dyads to continue breastfeeding. Resource allocation needs to be improved to increase access to care. Patient-centered technology interventions may decrease breastfeeding barriers in rural areas.

Evaluation of a regional midwifery caseload model of care integrated across five birthing sites in South Australia: Women's experiences and birth outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The ongoing closure of regional maternity services in Australia has significant consequences for women and communities. In South Australia, a regional midwifery model of care servicing five birthing sites was piloted with the aim of bringing sustainable birthing services to the area. An independent evaluation was undertaken. This paper reports on women's experiences and birth outcomes.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness, acceptability, continuity of care and birth outcomes of women utilising the new midwifery model of care.

METHOD

An anonymous questionnaire incorporating validated surveys and key questions from the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care (QMNC) Framework was used to assess care across the antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal period. Selected key labour and birth outcome indicators as reported by the sites to government perinatal data collections were included.

FINDINGS

The response rate was 52.6% (205/390). Women were overwhelmingly positive about the care they received during pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period. About half of women had caseload midwives as their main antenatal care provider; the other half experienced shared care with local general practitioners and caseload midwives. Most women (81.4%) had a known midwife at their birth. Women averaged 4 post-natal home visits with their midwife and 77.5% were breastfeeding at 6-8 weeks. Ninety-five percent of women would seek this model again and recommend it to a friend. Maternity indicators demonstrated a lower induction rate compared to state averages, a high primiparous normal birth rate (73.8%) and good clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This innovative model of care was embraced by women in regional SA and labour and birth outcomes were good as compared with state-wide indicators.

Healthcare provider's experiences of supporting breastfeeding: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative evidence

INTRODUCTION

Breastfeeding provides various health benefits to both mothers and infants. Despite the efforts that have been made, breastfeeding rates remain lower than recommended worldwide. Healthcare providers often fail to provide the support women need due to various reasons such as lack of time and competency, discontinuity of care and so on. Synthesis of the primary qualitative studies exploring healthcare providers' experience with supporting breastfeeding can provide greater insights into their perceived barriers and facilitators and further provide evidence for the implementation of interventions to improve breastfeeding services.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Qualitative studies exploring healthcare providers' experiences with breastfeeding services will be searched in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, Chinese Wanfang Data, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Open Grey collection. Studies reported in English or Chinese and conducted between January 1990 to July 2021 will be included. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research will be used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The JBI standardised data extraction tools will be used to extract data. The JBI meta-aggregation method will be used to synthesise the data. The synthesised findings will be graded finally according to the ConQual approach to establish confidence. Two authors will independently screen and select the search output, extract data, assess methodological quality and cluster findings. Any disagreements that arise between the two reviewers will be adjudicated by a third reviewer to reach a consensus.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review will use published data, so it will not require ethical approval. The findings of this systematic review will be disseminated via an international peer-reviewed journal publication and several scientific conference presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021254542.