A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief motivational intervention to improve exclusive breastfeeding rates: Study protocol

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.

A randomised controlled trial evaluating the effect of a brief motivational intervention to promote breastfeeding in postpartum depression

Postpartum depression (PPD) is the most frequent psychiatric complication during the postnatal period. According to existing evidence, an association exists between the development of PPD and the maintenance of breastfeeding. A brief motivational intervention (bMI), based on the motivational interview, seems effective in promoting breastfeeding. The objective of this study was to analyse the impact of a bMI aiming to promote breastfeeding on the development of PPD and explore the mediating/moderating roles of breastfeeding and breastfeeding self-efficacy in the effect of the intervention on developing PPD. Eighty-eight women who gave birth by vaginal delivery and started breastfeeding during the immediate postpartum period were randomly assigned to the intervention group (bMI) or control group (breastfeeding education). Randomisation by minimisation was carried out. The breastfeeding duration was longer in the intervention group (11.06 (± 2.94) weeks vs 9.02 (± 4.44), p = 0.013). The bMI was associated with a lower score on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, with a regression β coefficient of - 2.12 (95% CI - 3.82; - 0.41). A part of this effect was mediated by the effect of the intervention on the duration of breastfeeding (mediation/moderation index β = - 0.57 (95% CI - 1.30; - 0.04)). These findings suggest that a bMI aiming to promote breastfeeding has a positive impact preventing PPD mainly due to its effectiveness in increasing the duration of breastfeeding.

Randomized Clinical Trial of a Prenatal Breastfeeding and Mental Health Mixed Management Intervention

BACKGROUND

The continuity of maternal depressive symptoms throughout the perinatal period and breastfeeding problems have adverse influences on breastfeeding.

RESEARCH AIM

To compare the feeding patterns and breastfeeding experiences, maternal health and mental health, and breastfeeding self-efficacy between women with depressive symptoms who participated in a prenatal individualized mixed management intervention and those who received usual care.

METHODS

Chinese primigravida (N = 182) with an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale score ≥ 9 in late pregnancy (≥ 28 weeks and < 35 weeks) were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 84) or the control group (n = 84). Intervention group participants received four sessions of individualized mixed management combining psycho-education and breastfeeding education. Breastfeeding self-efficacy, feeding patterns, maternal depression, and health status were evaluated in both groups.

RESULTS

Significant differences were noted between the groups in breastfeeding self-efficacy at 42 days postpartum (p < .05) and feeding patterns at 3 months and 6 months postpartum (p < .05). Repeated measures analysis of variance showed significant differences in the EPDS scores between groups at three postpartum time points (p < .05). The intervention group had significantly lower postpartum depression as diagnosed by the MINI (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

A prenatal individualized mixed management intervention holds promise as an effective prevention and health promotion program addressing breastfeeding outcomes and maternal mental health.This RCT was registered (ChiCTR-IOR-17013761) with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, http://www.chictr.org.cn/enIndex.aspx on 12/7/2017.

Effect of a brief motivational intervention in the immediate postpartum period on breastfeeding self-efficacy: Randomized controlled trial

Brief motivational intervention (bMI) is a therapeutic approach that encourages self-efficacy and may have a positive effect on breastfeeding self-efficacy (BSE). The purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of a bMI in increasing BSE in women who started breastfeeding in the immediate postpartum period and to explore the roles of general self-efficacy and other baseline variables in this relationship. A randomized, parallel-group clinical trial was carried out. A bMI was compared with an educational session on breastfeeding. Changes in BSE and its dimensions and the interaction and mediation/moderation of general self-efficacy and other variables were analyzed. BSE increased in the bMI group from a mean baseline score of 59.14 (±9.35) to 64.62 (±7.91) at 1st month (p < 0.001). An interaction was found in that only women with higher education had an improvement in BSE during the follow-up period that was attributable to the bMI (mean difference between the bMI and the attention control group: 18.25 (95% confidence interval: 5.86-30.19; p = 0.006). This interaction was not found for the changes produced in the intrapersonal thoughts dimension of BSE, whose scores were higher in the bMI group at 3 and 6 months. General self-efficacy exerted a moderating effect on the association of bMI with BSE change. The effect of bMI was no longer significant when the general self-efficacy score was above 84. Thus, bMI is effective in increasing BSE. This effectiveness was limited by the mother's educational level and moderated by baseline general self-efficacy.

An evaluation of a prenatal individualised mixed management intervention addressing breastfeeding outcomes and postpartum depression: A ramdomised controlled trial

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of an individualised mixed management combined lactation education and psychoeducation intervention on breastfeeding outcomes and postpartum depression (PPD) at 3 and 42 days postpartum.

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women with antenatal depression are prone to postpartum depression and failure in breastfeeding.

DESIGN

Eligible women participated in a randomised single-blind controlled trial. Results are reported as per the CONSORT 2010 statement.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from December 2017-August 2018 at a major teaching hospital located in Shanghai. Primiparous women (n = 182) with an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale score ≥9 were randomly enrolled in the intervention group (n = 91) or the control group (n = 91). The intervention group participated in a 4-session face-to-face mixed management intervention targeting perinatal depression and breastfeeding. The control group received usual care. Breastfeeding and psychological outcomes were measured during the third trimester (≥28 weeks and <35 weeks), and at 3 and 42 days postpartum.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences in rates of overall and exclusive breastfeeding, initial breastfeeding experience, breastfeeding behaviour and self-efficacy between the two groups at 3 and 42 days postpartum (p < .05). Intention-to-treat linear mixed model analysis showed that EPDS scores were statistically significantly different between groups over time (F = 20.42, p < .001). Intervention group were more satisfied with their husbands' care and care received during the first month postpartum (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate the effectiveness and feasibility of delivering an individualised mixed management intervention combining lactation guidance with psychological support during pregnancy.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study supports the need to identify pregnant women at risk of perinatal depression and indicates that the prenatal individualised mixed management intervention has the potential to reduce PPD and help achieve better breastfeeding outcomes.

Process evaluations of early childhood obesity prevention interventions delivered via telephone or text messages: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, public health interventions are delivered via telephone and/or text messages. Recent systematic reviews of early childhood obesity prevention interventions have not adequately reported on the way interventions are delivered and the experiences/perceptions of stakeholders. We aimed to summarise the literature in early childhood obesity prevention interventions delivered via telephone or text messages for evidence of application of process evaluation primarily to evaluate stakeholders' acceptability of interventions.

METHODS

A systematic search of major electronic databases was carried out using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes framework. Studies were included if interventions were delivered via telephone/text messages; aimed at changing caregivers' behaviours to prevent early childhood obesity; with one or more outcomes related to early obesity risk factors such as breastfeeding, solid feeding, tummy time, sleep and settling, physical activity and screen time; published from inception to May 2020. All eligible studies were independently assessed by two reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. Qualitative studies were assessed using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research tools.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were eligible, and the overall risk of bias was low. Eight studies (33%) had evidence of process evaluation that examined participants' perceptions of interventions. Participants appreciated the convenience of receiving interventions via telephone or text messages. 63% of all studies in this review showed improvement in one or more behaviours related to childhood obesity prevention. Participants were likely to modify behaviours if they received information from a credible source such as from health professionals.

CONCLUSION

There is limited reporting of stakeholders' experiences in early obesity prevention studies delivered by telephone or text messages. Only one-third of studies examined participants' acceptability and the potential for delivery of childhood obesity prevention interventions conveniently using this mode of delivery. Interventions delivered remotely via telephone or text messages have the potential to reach equal or a greater number of participants than those delivered via face-to-face methods. Future research should build in process evaluation alongside effectiveness measurements to provide important insight into intervention reach, acceptability and to inform scale up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration: CRD42019108658.