Women's use of nipple shields-Their influence on breastfeeding duration after a process-oriented education for health professionals

Nipple shield use in the maternity ward increases risk of exclusive breastfeeding interruption in the first six months of infant's life

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the association between use of silicone nipple shields in the maternity ward and exclusive breastfeeding interruption in the first 6 months of the infant's life.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Interviews were conducted personally at the mother's home at 1 and 6 months postpartum and by telephone at 2 and 4 months.

PARTICIPANTS

287 mother-infant dyads.

METHODS

Lactating mothers were randomly selected at two maternity wards (one public, one private) in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox multivariate regression. The outcome of interest was exclusive breastfeeding interruption before 6 months of the infant's life.

FINDINGS

Nipple shields were used by 6.2 % of the women in the public maternity ward and by 25.8 % of those in the private setting. Median duration of exclusive breastfeeding was 11 days (95 %CI 0.0-36.9) among women who used the accessory vs. 89 days (95 %CI 60.8-117.2) among those who did not. Nipple shield use in the maternity ward was associated with exclusive breastfeeding interruption before 6 months of infant's life (adjusted risk ratio = 1.47; 95 %CI 1.01-2.15). The risk was higher in the first months of breastfeeding, ranging from 2.0 to 1.47 in the first and sixth months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of silicone nipple shields in the maternity ward increased the risk of exclusive breastfeeding interruption before 6 months of the infant's life, especially in the first months. These findings suggest caution in recommending this accessory to new mothers.

Factors Associated With Exclusive Direct Breastfeeding in the First 3 Months

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with exclusive direct breastfeeding in the first 3 months among mother and infant dyads living in the United States.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of data collected using a cross-sectional online survey completed over a 4-month period in late 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

We recruited a convenience sample of 370 mothers with healthy full-term singleton infants between 1 and 12 weeks of age whose feeding methods consisted of direct breastfeeding at least once a day. Mothers had not returned to work/school at the time of the survey completion.

MEASUREMENTS

The questionnaire consisted of 34 questions about maternal and infant factors that influence decisions about infant feeding, professional support, and parental preferences.

RESULTS

Mothers who practiced feeding on demand (adjusted OR [aOR] = 35.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] [2.04, 500.00]) and mothers of infants 1 to 4 weeks of age (aOR = 2.74, 95% CI [1.54, 4.85]) were more likely to use exclusive direct breastfeeding. The odds of exclusive direct breastfeeding decreased with mothers who breastfed with a nipple shield while in the hospital/birth center/home (aOR = 0.13, 95% CI [0.05, 0.35]), used pacifiers (aOR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.21, 0.65]), or had perceptions of insufficient milk (aOR = 0.11, 95% CI [0.04, 0.26]).

CONCLUSION

Demand feeding and an infant's age of 1 to 4 weeks contributed to exclusive direct breastfeeding. Lower rates of exclusive direct breastfeeding were associated with the use of nipple shields immediately after birth, pacifier use, and perceptions of insufficient milk. Further investigation is warranted to fully differentiate exclusive direct breastfeeding from exclusive breastfeeding.

Conceptual and operational definition of nursing outcomes regarding the breastfeeding establishment

OBJECTIVE

to construct conceptual and operational definitions of Nursing Outcomes "Breastfeeding establishment: infant (1000)" and "Breastfeeding establishment: maternal (1001)".

METHOD

integrative literature review in the following databases: PUBMED (United States National Library of Medicine); LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature); CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature); SciVerse SCOPUS; Web of Science; BDENF (Brazilian Nursing Database) and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database). The gray literature was explored to elucidate topics not covered by the articles. Of 3242 articles, 96 were selected to be read in full, and 43 were used for constructing the definitions. Five theses, three dissertations, three books and two manuals were selected.

RESULTS

all the results were reviewed. The definitions facilitated the improvement of the content proposed by the Nursing Outcomes Classification, favoring its application in clinical practice and supporting the development of research and teaching.

CONCLUSION

it was proposed to change the definition of the two outcomes, as well as to change the title of one of them to "Breastfeeding establishment: newborn & infant" (1000), modifying seven of its indicators and excluding one. For the outcome related to the mother, it was proposed to modify two indicators and exclude one.

Effectiveness of biological nurturing on early breastfeeding problems: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Biological nurturing is a neurobehavioral approach to breastfeeding support that encourages women to breastfed in a relaxed, laidback position. This approach has the potential to reduce breast problems (e.g., sore nipples), making good latch easier and thus facilitating the initiation of exclusive breastfeeding. However, its effects have not been adequately investigated in a real-life situation. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess the effectiveness of biological nurturing, compared to usual hospital practices, on the frequency of breast problems and on the prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding at discharge from the maternity ward, after 1 week, and at one and 4 months.

METHODS

Open randomized parallel controlled trial carried out in a third level maternity ward (IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy) between March and December 2018. Two-hundred eight women who planned to give birth at the hospital and who expressed the intention to breastfeed were enrolled during pregnancy and randomized to receive breastfeeding support following either the biological nurturing approach or the usual care protocol based on the WHO/UNICEF 20-h course, in use at the hospital. The primary study outcome was the incidence of breast problems during hospital stay, defined as the presence of one or more of the following outcomes, collected separately: sore nipples, cracked nipples, engorgement and mastitis. The primary analysis was performed by intention to treat. The follow up lasted 4 months.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty eight out of 208 women (90.3%) were included in the analysis, 90 allocated to the biological nurturing group and 98 to the usual care group. At discharge from the maternity ward, biological nurturing significantly reduced the risk of breast problems (Relative risk [RR] 0.56, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.40, 0.79), including cracked (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24, 0.74) and sore nipples (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40, 0.88). No statistically significant difference was observed for exclusive breastfeeding at discharge and up to 4 months. No adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The biological nurturing approach applied in the real-life situation of a third level hospital was effective in preventing breast problems.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03503500. Date of First Submission: 28 March 2018.

The effectiveness of health professional-delivered interventions during the first 1000 days to prevent overweight/obesity in children: A systematic review

Childhood obesity is a global public health challenge. Early prevention, particularly during the first 1000 days, is advocated. Health professionals have a role to play in obesity prevention efforts, in part due to the multiple routine contacts they have with parents. We synthesized the evidence for the effectiveness of obesity prevention interventions delivered by health professionals during this time period, as reviews to date have not examined effectiveness by intervention provider. We also explored what behaviour change theories and/or techniques were associated with more effective intervention outcomes. Eleven electronic databases and three trial registers were searched from inception to 04 April 2019. A total of 180 studies, describing 39 trials involving 46 intervention arms, were included. While the number of interventions has grown considerably, we found some evidence for the effectiveness of health professional-delivered interventions during the first 1000 days. Only four interventions were effective on a primary (adiposity/weight) and secondary (behavioural) outcome measure. Twenty-two were effective on a behavioural outcome only. Several methodological limitations were noted, impacting on efforts to establish the active ingredients of interventions. Future work should focus on the conduct and reporting of interventions.

Nipple shield use in preterm infants: Prevalence, motives for use and association with exclusive breastfeeding-Results from a national cohort study

Background and aim

Prevalence and motives for nipple shield use are not well studied in preterm infants and recommendations of nipple shield use in preterm infants are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of nipple shield use, explore the motives for nipple shield use and elucidate the association with exclusive breastfeeding in preterm infants.

Methods

The study was part of a prospective survey of a Danish national cohort of preterm infants based on questionnaires answered by the 1221 mothers of 1488 preterm infants with gestational age of 24–36 weeks. Data on nipple shield use was available for 1407 infants.

Results

Nipple shields were used by 54% of the mother-infant dyads for many different motives and was more often related to breastfeeding problems associated with the infant than with the mother. The most common motive for nipple shield use was “infant slipped the nipple” (52%). The lower the gestational age, the more frequently nipple shields were used for motives related to the infant. For those using a nipple shield, only the motive “infant fell asleep at the breast” was associated with a higher risk of not breastfeeding exclusively at discharge (OR 1.90 (95% CI 1.15; 3.13), p = 0.012), and “breast too engorged” with a lower risk of not breastfeeding exclusively (OR 0.32 (0.16; 0.63), p = 0.001), but overall nipple shield use was associated with failure of exclusive breastfeeding.

Conclusion

The present study does not give justifiable motives for nipple shield use, except for “breast too engorged”. Nipple shields should not be recommended for infants falling asleep at the breast, instead, staff and mothers should be patient, allowing the dyad time skin-to-skin. The results indicate that the use of a nipple shield does not promote exclusive breastfeeding in preterm infants.

Nipple Shield Use: Families' Stories

Background

Most IBCLCs interact with nipple shields in their work whether families bring nipple shields they are already using into consultations or professionals are suggesting the mothers use this lactation tool. Are nipple shields being used too much or too little? What is working and what is not?

Methods

The results of two online surveys on nipple shield use are presented: one for families and one for professionals.

Results

With over 4,600 responses from families and 600 responses from professionals, this new information helps reveal what is actually happening with families and the use of this common tool.

Conclusions

For some families, nipple shields saved their breastfeeding experiences. Other families had negative experiences, especially when they were misapplied or given without follow-up. IBCLCs need standard protocols for nipple shield use. Providing support and guidance for nipple shield use greatly increases a family's odds of having a successful experience, and IBCLCs are the perfect people to provide this.

Health professional-delivered obesity prevention interventions during the first 1,000 days: A systematic review of external validity reporting

Background: Childhood obesity prevention interventions delivered by health professionals during the first 1,000 days show some evidence of effectiveness, particularly in relation to behavioural outcomes. External validity refers to how generalisable interventions are to populations or settings beyond those in the original study. The degree to which external validity elements are reported in such studies is unclear however. This systematic review aimed to determine the extent to which childhood obesity interventions delivered by health professionals during the first 1,000 days report on elements that can be used to inform generalizability across settings and populations. Methods: Eligible studies meeting study inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified through a systematic review of 11 databases and three trial registers. An assessment tool based on the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework was used to assess the external validity of included studies. It comprised five dimensions: reach and representativeness of individuals, reach and representativeness of settings, implementation and adaptation, outcomes for decision making maintenance and/or institutionalisation. Two authors independently assessed the external validity of 20% of included studies; discrepancies were resolved, and then one author completed assessments of the remaining studies. Results: In total, 39 trials involving 46 interventions published between 1999 and 2019 were identified. The majority of studies were randomized controlled trials (n=24). Reporting varied within and between dimensions. External validity elements that were poorly described included: representativeness of individuals and settings, treatment receipt, intervention mechanisms and moderators, cost effectiveness, and intervention sustainability and acceptability. Conclusions: Our review suggests that more emphasis is needed on research designs that consider generalisability, and the reporting of external validity elements in early life childhood obesity prevention interventions. Important gaps in external validity reporting were identified that could facilitate decisions around the translation and scale-up of interventions from research to practice. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016050793 03/11/16.

Health professional-delivered obesity prevention interventions during the first 1,000 days: A systematic review of external validity reporting

Background: Childhood obesity prevention interventions delivered by health professionals during the first 1,000 days show some evidence of effectiveness, particularly in relation to behavioural outcomes. External validity refers to how generalisable interventions are to populations or settings beyond those in the original study. The degree to which external validity elements are reported in such studies is unclear however. This systematic review aimed to determine the extent to which childhood obesity interventions delivered by health professionals during the first 1,000 days report on elements that can be used to inform generalizability across settings and populations. Methods: Eligible studies meeting study inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified through a systematic review of 11 databases and three trial registers. An assessment tool based on the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework was used to assess the external validity of included studies. It comprised five dimensions: reach and representativeness of individuals, reach and representativeness of settings, implementation and adaptation, outcomes for decision making maintenance and/or institutionalisation. Two authors independently assessed the external validity of 20% of included studies; discrepancies were resolved, and then one author completed assessments of the remaining studies. Results: In total, 39 trials involving 46 interventions published between 1999 and 2019 were identified. The majority of studies were randomized controlled trials (n=24). Reporting varied within and between dimensions. External validity elements that were poorly described included: representativeness of individuals and settings, treatment receipt, intervention mechanisms and moderators, cost effectiveness, and intervention sustainability and acceptability. Conclusions: Our review suggests that more emphasis is needed on research designs that consider generalisability, and the reporting of external validity elements in early life childhood obesity prevention interventions. Important gaps in external validity reporting were identified that could facilitate decisions around the translation and scale-up of interventions from research to practice. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016050793 03/11/16.

ABM Clinical Protocol #7: Model Maternity Policy Supportive of Breastfeeding

A central goal of The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine is the development of clinical protocols for managing common medical problems that may impact breastfeeding success. These protocols serve only as guidelines for the care of breastfeeding mothers and infants and do not delineate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as standards of medical care. Variations in treatment may be appropriate according to the needs of an individual patient.

Breastfeeding Support in the Early Postpartum: Content of Home Visits in the SILC Trial

BACKGROUND

The Supporting breastfeeding In Local Communities (SILC) cluster randomized controlled trial evaluated whether a home visit focussed on infant feeding early in the postpartum period increased the percentage of infants breastfeeding at 4 months in low socioeconomic areas of Victoria, Australia. The visits were offered to women identified as at risk of early breastfeeding cessation after discharge home with a new baby. This paper describes the content of the home visits.

METHODS

SILC visited 1,043 women from September 2012 to March 2013, and completed a data sheet for each visit documenting topics discussed, as well as what support and resources were offered. Frequencies and percentages are presented.

RESULTS

Home visits most commonly included the provision of reassurance to women (91%). Topics discussed included general breastfeeding information (83%), supply and demand (83%), positioning (79%), and feeding frequency (78%). Newborn feeding/behavior (57%), expression of breastmilk (54%), nipple pain (41%), low breastmilk supply (41%), and the use of nipple shields (18%) were also prominent topics. The issues and support needs of women were similar across locations (rural, regional or metropolitan) and regardless of maternal parity or age. There was some variation in the resources suggested in different localities.

CONCLUSIONS

New mothers require help and reassurance independent of whether this is their first or subsequent child, reinforcing the need for support, breastfeeding information, and education about normal neonatal behavior. Key aspects of support are reassurance, normalization of infant behavior, and education.

Why do mothers use nipple shields and how does this influence duration of exclusive breastfeeding?

The present study addressed the contentious discussions about the benefits and risks of nipple shield use. The objective was to explore self-reported reasons for using a nipple shield and examine associations pertaining to the mother, the infant and duration of breastfeeding. Data were collected from 4815 Danish mothers (68%) who filled out a self-administered questionnaire with open and closed question. Data were analyzed by content and statistical descriptive and multivariable analysis. Results showed that 22% of the mothers used nipple shields in the beginning and 7% used it the entire breastfeeding period. Primiparae used nipple shields more often than multiparae, and early breastfeeding problems as well as background factors like lower age, education and higher body mass index were associated with a higher likelihood of using nipple shields. Characteristics of infants associated with introducing nipple shields were lower- gestational age and birthweight. The use of nipple shields was furthermore found to be associated with a threefold increased risk of earlier cessation of exclusive breastfeeding: among primiparae odds ratio = 3.80 (confidence interval 2.61-5.53); among multiparae odds ratio = 3.33 (confidence interval 1.88-5.93). Mothers' own descriptions underlined how various early breastfeeding problems led to the use of nipple shields. Some mothers were helped through a difficult period; others described the use creating a kind of dependence. The results highlight how nipple shields may help breastfeeding mothers in the early period but is not necessarily a supportive solution to the inexperienced mother who needs extra support in the early process of learning to breastfeed.

Nipple Shields

Mothers have used nipple shields for centuries for various breastfeeding issues and problems. Shield use has become controversial, but many clinicians recommend the use of nipple shields under varying circumstances despite the absence of any professionally peer-reviewed or generally agreed-upon guidelines, protocols, policies, or clinical algorithms. Judicious use of nipple shields can salvage the breastfeeding process, and most mothers have found them to be helpful. However, some mothers and studies have reported problems with shields. There remain many questions regarding the effect of nipple shield use on infant feeding behaviors relative to the imprinting that may be affected by presenting a superstimulus to an infant during a sensitive or critical period of time. This raises more questions than answers.

Nurses and midwives professional support increases with improved attitudes - design and effects of a longitudinal randomized controlled process-oriented intervention

Background

Becoming parents for the first time is challenging. Mothers need both social and professional support to handle these challenges. Professionals’ attitudes affect quality of care and support. So to improve professional support, an intervention consisting of a process-oriented training was performed. Due to the positive results of the intervention there is a need to illuminate the methodological approach further. The overall aim was therefore to describe a methodological approach to improve and evaluate health care professionals’ attitudes toward breastfeeding and parental support in order to improve quality of care in childbearing.

Methods

This study was a longitudinal randomized control intervention study, in which groups of mothers received care in childbearing from midwives and child health nurses. These health professionals had gone through a process-oriented training, or not. In order to improve attitudes of health professionals the training was based on evidence, practical skills and reflective processes (both private and professional experiences) in relation to breastfeeding and parental support. Included in the longitudinal study were health professionals from five intervention municipalities n = 36 and health professionals from five control municipalities n = 45. All mothers who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were consecutively identified from the hospital register and asked to participate in the study. Mothers who accepted to participate were included in the interventions group (n = 206) or control groups (n = 162, n = 172 respectively) based on which municipality they belonged to.

Results

The results of the process-oriented training improved the professionals’ attitudes toward breastfeeding and parental support. These improved attitudes in health professionals increased intervention-group mother’s satisfaction with professional and social support. Intervention-group mother’s relation to and feelings for their baby as well as breastfeeding was also improved.

Conclusion

These results stress the importance of professionals’ attitude in quality of care during childbearing, as well as pointing to the possibility to improve professionals’ attitudes with a process-oriented training.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), trial registration: ACTRN12611000354987.