Lhuri D Rahmartani, Maria A Quigley, Claire Carson
{"title":"在印度尼西亚,各种类型的乳前喂养(PLF)与母乳喂养持续时间的关系是否不同?一项利用印度尼西亚人口与健康调查数据集进行的横断面研究。","authors":"Lhuri D Rahmartani, Maria A Quigley, Claire Carson","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prelacteal feeding (PLF) is anything other than breastmilk given to newborns in the first few days of birth and/or before breastfeeding is established. PLF comes in many forms and is known as a challenge to optimal breastfeeding. Interestingly, both breastfeeding and PLF are common in Indonesia. This study investigated the association between PLF (any PLF, formula, honey, water and other milk) and breastfeeding duration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used Indonesia Demographic and Health Surveys data from 2002, 2007 and 2017. Sample sizes were 5558 (2007), 6268 (2007) and 6227 (2017) mothers whose last child was aged 0-23 months. We used Cox regression survival analysis to assess the association between PLF and breastfeeding duration, estimating hazard ratios (HR) for stopping earlier.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall PLF was prevalent (59%, 67% and 45% in 2002, 2007 and 2017, respectively), with formula being the most common (38%, 50% and 25%). No association between any PLF and breastfeeding duration in 2002 (HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.16)), but in 2007 and 2017, mothers who gave any PLF were more likely to stop breastfeeding earlier than those who did not (HR 1.33 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.61) and 1.47 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.69), respectively), especially in the first 6 months (HR 2.13 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.92) and 2.07 (95% CI 1.74 to 2.47), respectively). This association was more consistent for milk-based PLF. For example, HR in 2017 was 2.13 (95% CI 1.78 to 2.53) for prelacteal formula and 1.73 (95% CI 1.39 to 2.15) for other milk. The associations were inconsistent for the other PLF types. Prelacteal water showed no association while prelacteal honey showed some association with a longer breastfeeding duration in 2002 and 2007.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The impact of PLF on breastfeeding duration varied by type. While this study supports current recommendations to avoid PLF unless medically indicated, the potential consequences of different PLF types on breastfeeding outcomes should be clearly communicated to healthcare providers and mothers. Further research should explore the reasons for the high PLF prevalence in this setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11168184/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do various types of prelacteal feeding (PLF) have different associations with breastfeeding duration in Indonesia? A cross-sectional study using Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey datasets.\",\"authors\":\"Lhuri D Rahmartani, Maria A Quigley, Claire Carson\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014223\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prelacteal feeding (PLF) is anything other than breastmilk given to newborns in the first few days of birth and/or before breastfeeding is established. PLF comes in many forms and is known as a challenge to optimal breastfeeding. Interestingly, both breastfeeding and PLF are common in Indonesia. This study investigated the association between PLF (any PLF, formula, honey, water and other milk) and breastfeeding duration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used Indonesia Demographic and Health Surveys data from 2002, 2007 and 2017. Sample sizes were 5558 (2007), 6268 (2007) and 6227 (2017) mothers whose last child was aged 0-23 months. We used Cox regression survival analysis to assess the association between PLF and breastfeeding duration, estimating hazard ratios (HR) for stopping earlier.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall PLF was prevalent (59%, 67% and 45% in 2002, 2007 and 2017, respectively), with formula being the most common (38%, 50% and 25%). No association between any PLF and breastfeeding duration in 2002 (HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.16)), but in 2007 and 2017, mothers who gave any PLF were more likely to stop breastfeeding earlier than those who did not (HR 1.33 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.61) and 1.47 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.69), respectively), especially in the first 6 months (HR 2.13 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.92) and 2.07 (95% CI 1.74 to 2.47), respectively). This association was more consistent for milk-based PLF. For example, HR in 2017 was 2.13 (95% CI 1.78 to 2.53) for prelacteal formula and 1.73 (95% CI 1.39 to 2.15) for other milk. The associations were inconsistent for the other PLF types. Prelacteal water showed no association while prelacteal honey showed some association with a longer breastfeeding duration in 2002 and 2007.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The impact of PLF on breastfeeding duration varied by type. While this study supports current recommendations to avoid PLF unless medically indicated, the potential consequences of different PLF types on breastfeeding outcomes should be clearly communicated to healthcare providers and mothers. Further research should explore the reasons for the high PLF prevalence in this setting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11168184/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014223\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014223","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导言:母乳前喂养(PLF)是指在新生儿出生后的头几天和/或母乳喂养建立之前,给新生儿喂养母乳以外的任何食物。乳前喂养有多种形式,是对最佳母乳喂养的一种挑战。有趣的是,在印度尼西亚,母乳喂养和PLF都很常见。本研究调查了PLF(任何PLF、配方奶、蜂蜜、水和其他奶类)与母乳喂养持续时间之间的关系:本研究使用了印度尼西亚 2002 年、2007 年和 2017 年的人口与健康调查数据。样本量分别为 5558(2007 年)、6268(2007 年)和 6227(2017 年)名婴儿年龄为 0-23 个月的母亲。我们使用 Cox 回归生存分析法评估了 PLF 与母乳喂养持续时间之间的关系,并估算了提前停止母乳喂养的危险比 (HR):总的来说,PLF很普遍(2002年、2007年和2017年分别为59%、67%和45%),其中配方奶粉最常见(38%、50%和25%)。2002 年,任何 PLF 与母乳喂养持续时间之间没有关联(HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.16)),但在 2007 年和 2017 年,给予任何 PLF 的母亲比不给予 PLF 的母亲更有可能提前停止母乳喂养(HR 1.33(95% CI 1.11至1.61)和1.47(95% CI 1.28至1.69)),尤其是在前6个月(HR分别为2.13(95% CI 1.55至2.92)和2.07(95% CI 1.74至2.47))。这种关联在以牛奶为基础的PLF中更为一致。例如,2017年母乳前配方奶粉的HR为2.13(95% CI 1.78至2.53),其他奶类的HR为1.73(95% CI 1.39至2.15)。其他PLF类型的相关性并不一致。在 2002 年和 2007 年,母乳水与母乳喂养持续时间无关,而母乳蜜则与母乳喂养持续时间有关:结论:PLF 对母乳喂养时间的影响因类型而异。虽然这项研究支持目前的建议,即除非有医学指征,否则应避免使用PLF,但不同类型的PLF对母乳喂养结果的潜在影响应明确告知医疗保健提供者和母亲。进一步的研究应探讨在这种情况下PLF发生率高的原因。
Do various types of prelacteal feeding (PLF) have different associations with breastfeeding duration in Indonesia? A cross-sectional study using Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey datasets.
Introduction: Prelacteal feeding (PLF) is anything other than breastmilk given to newborns in the first few days of birth and/or before breastfeeding is established. PLF comes in many forms and is known as a challenge to optimal breastfeeding. Interestingly, both breastfeeding and PLF are common in Indonesia. This study investigated the association between PLF (any PLF, formula, honey, water and other milk) and breastfeeding duration.
Methods: This study used Indonesia Demographic and Health Surveys data from 2002, 2007 and 2017. Sample sizes were 5558 (2007), 6268 (2007) and 6227 (2017) mothers whose last child was aged 0-23 months. We used Cox regression survival analysis to assess the association between PLF and breastfeeding duration, estimating hazard ratios (HR) for stopping earlier.
Results: Overall PLF was prevalent (59%, 67% and 45% in 2002, 2007 and 2017, respectively), with formula being the most common (38%, 50% and 25%). No association between any PLF and breastfeeding duration in 2002 (HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.16)), but in 2007 and 2017, mothers who gave any PLF were more likely to stop breastfeeding earlier than those who did not (HR 1.33 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.61) and 1.47 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.69), respectively), especially in the first 6 months (HR 2.13 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.92) and 2.07 (95% CI 1.74 to 2.47), respectively). This association was more consistent for milk-based PLF. For example, HR in 2017 was 2.13 (95% CI 1.78 to 2.53) for prelacteal formula and 1.73 (95% CI 1.39 to 2.15) for other milk. The associations were inconsistent for the other PLF types. Prelacteal water showed no association while prelacteal honey showed some association with a longer breastfeeding duration in 2002 and 2007.
Conclusion: The impact of PLF on breastfeeding duration varied by type. While this study supports current recommendations to avoid PLF unless medically indicated, the potential consequences of different PLF types on breastfeeding outcomes should be clearly communicated to healthcare providers and mothers. Further research should explore the reasons for the high PLF prevalence in this setting.
期刊介绍:
BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.