Telephone support for breastfeeding by primary care: a randomised multicentre trial

To evaluate a telephone support programme for mothers who breastfeed for the first 6 months. A randomised unmasked clinical trial was conducted in 5 urban Primary Care centres that included mothers with healthy newborns who were breastfeeding exclusively (EBF) or partially (PBF). The control group r...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Anales de Pediatría 2018-12, Vol.89 (6), p.344-351
Hauptverfasser: Balaguer Martínez, Josep Vicent, Valcarce Pérez, Inmaculada, Esquivel Ojeda, Jessica Noelia, Hernández Gil, Alicia, Martín Jiménez, María Del Pilar, Bernad Albareda, Mercè
Format: Artikel
Sprache:spa
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To evaluate a telephone support programme for mothers who breastfeed for the first 6 months. A randomised unmasked clinical trial was conducted in 5 urban Primary Care centres that included mothers with healthy newborns who were breastfeeding exclusively (EBF) or partially (PBF). The control group received the usual care. The intervention group also received telephone support for breastfeeding on a weekly basis for the first 2months and then every 2weeks until the sixth month. The type of breastfeeding was recorded in the usual check-up visit (1, 2, 4 and 6 months). The study included 193 patients in the intervention group, and 187 in a control group. The greatest increase in the percentage of EBF was observed at 6 months: 21.4% in the control group compared to 30.1% in the intervention group. However, in the adjusted odds ratios analysis, confidence intervals did not show statistical significance. The odds ratio at 1 month, 2 months, 4 months, and 6 months for EBF were 1.45 (0.91-2.31), 1.35 (0.87-2.08), 1.21 (0.80-1.81), and 1.58 (0.99-2.53), respectively. The odds ratio in the same age groups for any type of breastfeeding (EBF + PBF) were 1.65 (0.39-7.00), 2.08 (0.94-4.61), 1.37 (0.79-2.38), and 1.60 (0.98-2.61), respectively. Telephone intervention was not effective enough to generalise it.
ISSN:2341-2879
DOI:10.1016/j.anpedi.2018.02.007