利益相关者对 "爱婴倡议 "的实施和影响的看法:一项混合方法研究。

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY International Breastfeeding Journal Pub Date : 2024-07-12 DOI:10.1186/s13006-024-00639-8
Frankie Joy Fair, Alison Morison, Hora Soltani
{"title":"利益相关者对 \"爱婴倡议 \"的实施和影响的看法:一项混合方法研究。","authors":"Frankie Joy Fair, Alison Morison, Hora Soltani","doi":"10.1186/s13006-024-00639-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) was launched in 1991 as an intervention to support healthy infant feeding practices, but its global coverage remains around 10%. This study aimed to explore stakeholders' views of the Baby Friendly Initiative (BFI) programme, the barriers and facilitators to accreditation and its perceived impact.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed methods approach was used. An online survey was distributed through numerous professional networks from September 2020 to November 2020. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, with simple content analysis undertaken on open-ended responses. Individual semi-structured interviews were also undertaken and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 322 respondents completed the survey in part or in full, mainly from the United Kingdom. Fifteen key stakeholders and two maternity service users undertook interviews. Respondents were from various professional backgrounds and currently worked in different roles including direct care of women and their families, public health, education and those responsible for purchasing health services. Survey respondents viewed the BFI to have the greatest impact on breastfeeding initiation, duration, and infant health outcomes. Three overall themes were identified. The first was \"BFI as an agent for change\". Most participants perceived the need to implement the whole package, but views were mixed regarding its impact and the accreditation process. Secondly, BFI was regarded as only \"one part of a jigsaw\", with no single intervention viewed as adequate to address the complex cultural context and social and health inequities that impact breastfeeding. Finally, \"cultural change and education\" around breastfeeding were viewed as essential for women, staff and society.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The BFI is not a magic bullet intervention. To create a more supportive breastfeeding environment within society a holistic approach is required. This includes social and cultural changes, increased education ideally starting at school age, and advancing positive messaging around breastfeeding within the media, as well as fully banning breastmilk substitute advertising. Although the BFI comprises a whole package, few survey respondents rated all aspects as equally important. Additional evidence for the effectiveness of each element and the importance of the whole package need to be established and communicated.</p>","PeriodicalId":54266,"journal":{"name":"International Breastfeeding Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11241943/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stakeholders' views of the Baby Friendly Initiative implementation and impact: a mixed methods study.\",\"authors\":\"Frankie Joy Fair, Alison Morison, Hora Soltani\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13006-024-00639-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) was launched in 1991 as an intervention to support healthy infant feeding practices, but its global coverage remains around 10%. This study aimed to explore stakeholders' views of the Baby Friendly Initiative (BFI) programme, the barriers and facilitators to accreditation and its perceived impact.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed methods approach was used. An online survey was distributed through numerous professional networks from September 2020 to November 2020. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, with simple content analysis undertaken on open-ended responses. Individual semi-structured interviews were also undertaken and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 322 respondents completed the survey in part or in full, mainly from the United Kingdom. Fifteen key stakeholders and two maternity service users undertook interviews. Respondents were from various professional backgrounds and currently worked in different roles including direct care of women and their families, public health, education and those responsible for purchasing health services. Survey respondents viewed the BFI to have the greatest impact on breastfeeding initiation, duration, and infant health outcomes. Three overall themes were identified. The first was \\\"BFI as an agent for change\\\". Most participants perceived the need to implement the whole package, but views were mixed regarding its impact and the accreditation process. Secondly, BFI was regarded as only \\\"one part of a jigsaw\\\", with no single intervention viewed as adequate to address the complex cultural context and social and health inequities that impact breastfeeding. Finally, \\\"cultural change and education\\\" around breastfeeding were viewed as essential for women, staff and society.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The BFI is not a magic bullet intervention. To create a more supportive breastfeeding environment within society a holistic approach is required. This includes social and cultural changes, increased education ideally starting at school age, and advancing positive messaging around breastfeeding within the media, as well as fully banning breastmilk substitute advertising. Although the BFI comprises a whole package, few survey respondents rated all aspects as equally important. Additional evidence for the effectiveness of each element and the importance of the whole package need to be established and communicated.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Breastfeeding Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11241943/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Breastfeeding Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13006-024-00639-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Breastfeeding Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13006-024-00639-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:爱婴医院倡议(BFHI)于1991年启动,旨在支持健康的婴儿喂养方式,但其全球覆盖率仍只有10%左右。本研究旨在探讨利益相关方对爱婴医院计划(BFI)的看法、评审的障碍和促进因素以及对其影响的认识:采用了混合方法。从 2020 年 9 月至 2020 年 11 月,通过众多专业网络分发了一份在线调查。采用描述性统计对定量数据进行分析,并对开放式回答进行简单的内容分析。此外,还进行了个人半结构式访谈,并使用归纳式主题分析法进行分析:共有 322 名受访者部分或全部完成了调查,他们主要来自英国。15 名主要利益相关者和 2 名孕产妇服务使用者接受了访谈。受访者来自不同的专业背景,目前从事不同的工作,包括直接照顾妇女及其家庭、公共卫生、教育和负责购买医疗服务。调查对象认为,母乳喂养倡议对母乳喂养的开始、持续时间和婴儿健康结果的影响最大。调查确定了三个总体主题。第一个主题是 "作为变革推动者的母乳喂养倡议"。大多数参与者认为有必要实施整套方案,但对其影响和认证过程的看法不一。其次,与会者认为母乳喂养倡议只是 "拼图的一部分",没有任何一项干预措施足以解决影响母乳喂养的复杂文化背景以及社会和健康方面的不平等问题。最后,围绕母乳喂养的 "文化变革和教育 "对妇女、员工和社会都至关重要:结论:母乳喂养倡议并非灵丹妙药。结论:母乳喂养倡议并不是一项灵丹妙药的干预措施,要在社会中营造一个更加支持母乳喂养的环境,需要采取综合的方法。这包括社会和文化变革、从学龄儿童开始加强教育、在媒体上宣传母乳喂养的正面信息以及全面禁止母乳替代品广告。尽管《母乳喂养倡议》包括一整套措施,但很少有调查对象认为所有方面都同等重要。需要建立和传播更多证据,以证明每个要素的有效性和整个一揽子计划的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Stakeholders' views of the Baby Friendly Initiative implementation and impact: a mixed methods study.

Background: The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) was launched in 1991 as an intervention to support healthy infant feeding practices, but its global coverage remains around 10%. This study aimed to explore stakeholders' views of the Baby Friendly Initiative (BFI) programme, the barriers and facilitators to accreditation and its perceived impact.

Methods: A mixed methods approach was used. An online survey was distributed through numerous professional networks from September 2020 to November 2020. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, with simple content analysis undertaken on open-ended responses. Individual semi-structured interviews were also undertaken and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results: A total of 322 respondents completed the survey in part or in full, mainly from the United Kingdom. Fifteen key stakeholders and two maternity service users undertook interviews. Respondents were from various professional backgrounds and currently worked in different roles including direct care of women and their families, public health, education and those responsible for purchasing health services. Survey respondents viewed the BFI to have the greatest impact on breastfeeding initiation, duration, and infant health outcomes. Three overall themes were identified. The first was "BFI as an agent for change". Most participants perceived the need to implement the whole package, but views were mixed regarding its impact and the accreditation process. Secondly, BFI was regarded as only "one part of a jigsaw", with no single intervention viewed as adequate to address the complex cultural context and social and health inequities that impact breastfeeding. Finally, "cultural change and education" around breastfeeding were viewed as essential for women, staff and society.

Conclusions: The BFI is not a magic bullet intervention. To create a more supportive breastfeeding environment within society a holistic approach is required. This includes social and cultural changes, increased education ideally starting at school age, and advancing positive messaging around breastfeeding within the media, as well as fully banning breastmilk substitute advertising. Although the BFI comprises a whole package, few survey respondents rated all aspects as equally important. Additional evidence for the effectiveness of each element and the importance of the whole package need to be established and communicated.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Breastfeeding Journal
International Breastfeeding Journal Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
11.40%
发文量
76
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊介绍: Breastfeeding is recognized as an important public health issue with enormous social and economic implications. Infants who do not receive breast milk are likely to experience poorer health outcomes than breastfed infants; mothers who do not breastfeed increase their own health risks. Publications on the topic of breastfeeding are wide ranging. Articles about breastfeeding are currently published journals focused on nursing, midwifery, paediatric, obstetric, family medicine, public health, immunology, physiology, sociology and many other topics. In addition, electronic publishing allows fast publication time for authors and Open Access ensures the journal is easily accessible to readers.
期刊最新文献
Factors affecting infant feeding choices with a focus on barriers to exclusive breastfeeding in Western Jamaica: a qualitative study Infant formula donations and code violations during earthquake relief efforts in Türkiye in 2023: an observational study. Formal and informal human milk donation in New Zealand: a mixed-method national survey. Experiences of breast milk donors in Sweden: balancing the motivation to do something good with overcoming the challenges it entails. Incidence and factors influencing delayed onset of lactation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1