The effect of nursing interventions on immigrant women living in Northern Cyprus on their breastfeeding self-efficacy and success: a randomized controlled trial

The Impact of Training Based on the Pender Health Promotion Model on Self-Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The concept of self-efficacy is a determining factor in many behaviours related to health promotion and health education. Several pilot studies have been conducted in different parts of the world on different populations regarding the impact of training based on the Pender Health Promotion Model on self-efficacy, yielding conflicting results. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted with the aim of evaluating and summarizing the results of studies on the impact of training based on the Pender Health Promotion Model on self-efficacy.

DATA SOURCE

MagIran, SID, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar.

STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Original scientific research articles; Interventional studies; Studies investigating the effects of education based on the Pender Health Promotion Model on self-efficacy; Studies irrelevant to the objective; Cross-sectional studies; case reports; and papers presented in conferences; letters to the editor; systematic and meta-analysis studies.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of the 18 included studies using a pre-prepared checklist for the systematic review and meta-analysis process.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We conducted meta-analyses and reported the characteristics, outcomes, and risk of bias of studies.

METHODS

The present study was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines until December 2022. The quality assessment of the included articles for meta-analysis was performed using the JBI checklist. Heterogeneity of the studies was calculated using the I2 statistics, and Egger's regression intercept was used to assess publication bias.

RESULTS

In the initial search, 13,943 studies were found, and after excluding studies irrelevant to the research objective, a total of 18 articles were included in the meta-analysis. These articles represented a sample size of 1015 individuals in the intervention group and 999 individuals in the control group. The combined results of the studies showed a significant increase in self-efficacy in the intervention group when compared to the control group (1.788 ± .267; CI: 95%, P < .001). With an increase in the year of study and the quality assessment score of the articles, the effect of the intervention decreased (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicated that training based on the Pender Health Promotion Model significantly increased self-efficacy. Therefore, it seems that training based on this model can have positive effects on individuals' self-efficacy.

Theoretical approaches in the development of interventions to promote breastfeeding: A scoping review

PROBLEM AND BACKGROUND

There is a low world rate of exclusive breastfeeding and a short duration of breastfeeding. More studies have constructed interventions to improve breastfeeding behavior, but the actual effect is not significant.

AIM

The purpose of this review is identifying the ways that various theories have an influence on theory-based breastfeeding intervention studies.

METHODS

A scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework explored breastfeeding promotion practices. PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched from database creation to March 9, 2024. Building on previous research, key terms were used to search the literature. Data analysis involved descriptive and interpretive summaries of theories used and the proposed interventions.

FINDINGS

An online search yielded 906 articles, with 28 meeting the inclusion criteria for the scoping review, including 5 reviews and 23 articles. Reviews demonstrated that interventions based on theories were more effective. Articles promoting breastfeeding used theories of self-efficacy (n = 9), theory of planned behavior (n = 8), social cognitive theory (n = 5) and individual and family self-management theory (n = 1). These theories were used in developing specific content of the intervention program (n = 20, 86.9%), constructing the framework of the program (n = 10, 43.5%), and evaluating outcomes (n = 19, 82.6%). Most interventions focused on education, professional support, and/or peer support for breastfeeding.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Theory can guide decisions and play a role in selecting a methodology or lens. Researchers should make deliberate choices in the use of a theory that relates to aspects of breastfeeding behavior. Future interventions based on theories should be more varied and effective and need to consider families' and social factors.

The effect of online hypno-breastfeeding and solution-focused psychoeducation on mothers' breastfeeding motivation and perception of insufficient milk: Randomize controlled study

This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of hypno-breastfeeding (HB) and solution-focused psychoeducation (SFP) on breastfeeding motivation and insufficient milk perception in mothers. It is a randomized controlled experimental study. The sample of the study consisted of 90 women who met the inclusion criteria. Women in the intervention groups had increased motivation to breastfeed and decreased perception of insufficient milk. Those in the SFP group had significantly lower midwife support scores than the HB group. HB and SFP are safe and effective methods to increase mothers' motivation to breastfeed and reduce the perception of insufficient milk.

Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies

BACKGROUND

There is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant's diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To describe types of breastfeeding support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. 2. To examine the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding support interventions in terms of whether they offered only breastfeeding support or breastfeeding support in combination with a wider maternal and child health intervention ('breastfeeding plus' support).  3. To examine the effectiveness of the following intervention characteristics on breastfeeding support:      a. type of support (e.g. face-to-face, telephone, digital technologies, group or individual support, proactive or reactive);      b. intensity of support (i.e. number of postnatal contacts);      c. person delivering the intervention (e.g. healthcare professional, lay person);     d. to examine whether the impact of support varied between high- and low-and middle-income countries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes results of searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) (11 May 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care. Support could be provided face-to-face, over the phone or via digital technologies. All studies had to meet the trustworthiness criteria.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods. Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and study trustworthiness.  The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 116 trials of which 103 contribute data to the analyses. In total more than 98,816 mother-infant pairs were included.  Moderate-certainty evidence indicated that 'breastfeeding only' support probably reduced the number of women stopping breastfeeding for all primary outcomes: stopping any breastfeeding at six months (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.89 to 0.97); stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93); stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97); and stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90). Similar findings were reported for the secondary breastfeeding outcomes except for any breastfeeding at two months and 12 months when the evidence was uncertain if 'breastfeeding only' support helped reduce the number of women stopping breastfeeding.  The evidence for 'breastfeeding plus' was less consistent. For primary outcomes there was some evidence that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably reduced the number of women stopping any breastfeeding (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.97, moderate-certainty evidence) or exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.90).  'Breastfeeding plus' interventions may have a beneficial effect on reducing the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95). The evidence suggests that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably results in little to no difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08, moderate-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes, it was uncertain if 'breastfeeding plus' support helped reduce the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding at any time points.  There were no consistent findings emerging from the narrative synthesis of the non-breastfeeding outcomes (maternal satisfaction with care, maternal satisfaction with feeding method, infant morbidity, and maternal mental health), except for a possible reduction of diarrhoea in intervention infants.  We considered the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Blinding of participants and personnel is not feasible in such interventions and as studies utilised self-report breastfeeding data, there is also a risk of bias in outcome assessment.   We conducted meta-regression to explore substantial heterogeneity for the primary outcomes using the following categories: person providing care; mode of delivery; intensity of support; and income status of country.  It is possible that moderate levels (defined as 4-8 visits) of 'breastfeeding only' support may be associated with a more beneficial effect on exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and six months. 'Breastfeeding only' support may also be more effective in reducing women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months compared to women in high-income countries (HICs). However, no other differential effects were found and thus heterogeneity remains largely unexplained. The meta-regression suggested that there were no differential effects regarding person providing support or mode of delivery, however, power was limited.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When 'breastfeeding only' support is offered to women, the duration and in particular, the exclusivity of breastfeeding is likely to be increased. Support may also be more effective in reducing the number of women stopping breastfeeding at three to four months compared to later time points.  For 'breastfeeding plus' interventions the evidence is less certain. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Support can also be offered face-to-face, via telephone or digital technologies, or a combination and may be more effective when delivered on a schedule of four to eight visits. Further work is needed to identify components of the effective interventions and to deliver interventions on a larger scale.

Predictors and impact of women's breastfeeding self-efficacy and postnatal care in the context of a pandemic in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand

OBJECTIVE

To investigate predictors of breastfeeding self-efficacy, postnatal care experiences, and there subsequent impact on breastfeeding outcomes in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional online survey collected data between August and October 2020 with recruitment via social media. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive analyses, and linear and logistic regression analysis related to the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form findings. Open text responses were analyzed using content analysis.

FINDINGS

There were 1001 complete responses. Visitor restrictions impacted the woman's early parenting experience in both positive and negative ways. One third of participants stated their postnatal needs were not met with 82 stating that they had no postnatal care at all. During the first six weeks postnatal, 48.1% felt not very or not at all confident caring for their baby. Despite 94.3% of participants initiating breastfeeding, only 70% were exclusively breastfeeding at six weeks. The mean self-efficacy score was 49.98 suggesting the need for additional help, with first time mothers having a statistically significant lower score.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Sub-optimal postnatal care and support negatively influence breastfeeding self-efficacy. Women desired additional help during the COVID-19 pandemic inclusive of support and education to meet their postnatal needs and exclusively breastfeed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Women require appropriate and timely postnatal care and support to promote confidence in caring for baby and achieve their breastfeeding goals. Preferably this care should be provided face-to-face.