Infant feeding for women with an eating disorder: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Mothers with eating disorders can face additional challenges with infant feeding, and there is evidence they are likely to cease breastfeeding earlier than intended. However, there is little research exploring this. The present study used interpretative phenomenological analysis to explore the lived experience of infant feeding for mothers suffering from or recovering from an eating disorder. Semistructured interviews were conducted with six women-five who had breastfed and one who formula-fed. The women experienced two incompatible worlds-motherhood and an eating disorder. Tensions were sometimes resolved by reducing eating disordered behaviour alongside immersion in motherhood. Two participants did not find infant feeding particularly important for their journey into motherhood. Four recounted a positive shift in their relationship to their body through breastfeeding and felt their embodied experience of mothering provided a route out of eating disordered behaviour. However, doubts about their mothering and infant feeding capabilities could be amplified by feeling mistrusted by others and by the relative silence around eating disorders within maternity care services. Respectful dialogue with health care professionals was particularly valued where this occurred. Although long-term outcomes for the participants are unknown, the study suggests women with a history of eating disorders can form successful breastfeeding relationships and may be motivated to engage in collaborative risk assessment. However, they need support in managing emotional challenges. Training around eating disorders for maternity care professionals is likely to be useful for enhancing confidence in engaging mothers proactively to share concerns about eating, weight and body shape.

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.

Self-conscious emotions and breastfeeding support: A focused synthesis of UK qualitative research.

Research on women's experiences of infant feeding and related moral discourse suggests that self-conscious emotions may be highly relevant to breastfeeding support interactions. However, the emotional impact of receiving support has not been fully explored. The aim of this review is to re-examine qualitative UK research on receiving breastfeeding support, in order to explore the role of self-conscious emotions and related appraisals in interactions with professional and peer supporters. From 2007 to 2020, 34 studies met criteria for inclusion. Using template analysis to identify findings relevant to self-conscious emotions, we focused on shame, guilt, embarrassment, humiliation and pride. Because of cultural aversion to direct discussion of self-conscious emotions, the template also identified thoughts about self-evaluation, perceptions of judgement and sense of exposure. Self-conscious emotions were explicitly mentioned in 25 papers, and related concerns were noted in all papers. Through thematic synthesis, three themes were identified, which suggested that (i) breastfeeding 'support' could present challenges to mothering identity and hence to emotional well-being; (ii) many women managed interactions in order to avoid or minimise uncomfortable self-conscious emotions; and (iii) those providing support for breastfeeding could facilitate women's emotion work by validating their mothering, or undermine this by invalidation, contributing to feelings of embarrassment, guilt or humiliation. Those supporting breastfeeding need good emotional 'antennae' if they are to ensure they also support transition to motherhood. This is the first study explicitly examining self-conscious emotions in breastfeeding support, and further research is needed to explore the emotional nuances of women's interactions with supporters.

Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

The Covid-19 pandemic has led to a substantial increase in remotely provided maternity care services, including breastfeeding support. It is, therefore, important to understand whether breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. To determine if breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Twenty-nine studies were included in the review and 26 contributed data to the meta-analysis. Remotely provided breastfeeding support significantly reduced the risk of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months by 25% (risk ratio [RR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63, 0.90). There was no significant difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.74, 1.64), 3 months (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.11), or 6 months (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.81, 1.03) or the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.07) or 6 months (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.0). There was substantial heterogeneity of interventions in terms of mode of delivery, intensity, and providers. This demonstrates that remote interventions can be effective for improving exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months but the certainty of the evidence is low. Improvements in exclusive breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks and 6 months were only found when studies at high risk of bias were excluded. They are also less likely to be effective for improving any breastfeeding. Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education could be provided when it is not possible to provide face-to-face care.

Systematic review of barriers to, and facilitators of, the provision of high-quality midwifery services in India.

BACKGROUND: The Indian government has committed to implementing high-quality midwifery care to achieve universal health coverage and reduce the burden of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. There are multiple challenges, including introducing a new cadre of midwives educated to international standards and integrating midwifery into the health system with a defined scope of practice. The objective of this review was to examine the facilitators and barriers to providing high-quality midwifery care in India. METHODS: We searched 15 databases for studies relevant to the provision of midwifery care in India. The findings were mapped to two global quality frameworks to identify barriers and facilitators to providing high-quality midwifery care in India. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included. Key barriers were lack of competence of maternity care providers, lack of legislation recognizing midwives as autonomous professionals and limited scope of practice, social and economic barriers to women accessing services, and lack of basic health system infrastructure. Facilitators included providing more hands-on experience during training, monitoring and supervision of staff, utilizing midwives to their full scope of practice with good referral systems, improving women's experiences of maternity care, and improving health system infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS: The findings can be used to inform policy and practice. Overcoming the identified barriers will be critical to achieving the Government of India's plans to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality through the introduction of a new cadre of midwives. This is unlikely to be effective until the facilitators described are in place.

Understanding process and context in breastfeeding support interventions: The potential of qualitative research.

Considerable effort has been made in recent years to gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of different interventions for supporting breastfeeding. However, research has tended to focus primarily on measuring outcomes and has paid comparatively little attention to the relational, organizational, and wider contextual processes that may impact delivery of an intervention. Supporting a woman with breastfeeding is an interpersonal encounter that may play out differently in different contexts, despite the apparently consistent aims and structure of an intervention. We consider the limitations of randomized controlled trials for building understanding of the ways in which different components of an intervention may impact breastfeeding women and how the messages conveyed through interactions with breastfeeding supporters might be received. We argue that qualitative methods are ideally suited to understanding psychosocial processes within breastfeeding interventions and have been underused. After briefly reviewing qualitative research to date into experiences of receiving and delivering breastfeeding support, we discuss the potential of theoretically informed qualitative methodologies to provide fuller understanding of intervention processes by focusing on three examples: phenomenology, ethnography, and discourse analysis. The paper concludes by noting some of the epistemological differences between the broadly positivist approach of trials and qualitative methodologies, and we suggest there is a need for further dialog as to how researchers might bridge these differences in order to develop a fuller and more holistic understanding of how best to support breastfeeding women.

7. Mentor update and support: what do mentors need from an update?

Mentorship is the 14th series of 'Midwifery basics' targeted at practising midwives. The aim of these articles is to provide information to raise awareness of the impact of the work of midwives on women's experience, and encourage midwives to seek further information through a series of activities relating to the topic. In this seventh article Mari Phillips and Joyce Marshall consider some of the key issues related to mentor update and support and consider what mentors need from their annual update.

Parents' views on how health professionals should work with them now to get the best for their child in the future.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy and the first years of life are important times for future child well-being. Early identification of families and children who might be likely to experience poorer outcomes could enable health professionals and parents to work together to promote each child's well-being. Little is known about the acceptability and feasibility of such an approach to parents. OBJECTIVE: To investigate parents' views about how health professionals should identify and work with families who may benefit from additional input to maximize their children's future health and well-being. DESIGN: A qualitative study using focus groups. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Eleven focus groups were conducted with a total of 54 parents; 42 mothers and 12 fathers living in the north of England. RESULTS: Parents welcomed the idea of preventive services. They strongly believed that everyone should have access to services to enhance child well-being whilst recognizing that some families need additional support. Making judgements about who should receive additional services based on specific criteria evoked powerful emotions because of the implication of failure. Parents projected a belief in themselves as 'good parents' even in adverse circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted additional preventive services can be acceptable and welcome if health professionals introduce them sensitively, in the context of an existing relationship, providing parents are active participants.

Lessons for the UK on implementation and evaluation of breastfeeding support: evidence syntheses and stakeholder engagement.

Background: Breastfeeding impacts positively on multiple health outcomes, but < 50% of UK women breastfeed at 8 weeks. Women with long-term conditions face additional challenges in breastfeeding. Objectives: To synthesise global and UK evidence to co-create an implementation and evaluation toolkit for cost-effective breastfeeding support in the NHS. Design: Evidence syntheses with stakeholder engagement. Review methods: Systematic reviews examined effectiveness of breastfeeding support for (1) healthy women and (2) women with long-term conditions using Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group methods. Mixed-methods systematic reviews synthesised process evaluations of effective breastfeeding support interventions for healthy women and experiences of receiving/providing support for breastfeeding women with long-term conditions. Cross-study synthesis integrated qualitative and quantitative findings. Systematic reviews synthesised evidence on the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding support following National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. All searches were conducted from May 2021 to October 2022. Stakeholder engagement and toolkit development comprised online discussions, a modified Delphi study, focus groups and four workshops. Participants were 23 stakeholders, 16 parents in the parents' panels, 15 women in the focus groups and 87 stakeholders who attended the workshops. Results: We found considerably more interventions designed for healthy women (review 1) than aimed at women with long-term conditions (reviews 1 and 4); approximately half of the studies were targeted at groups at higher risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes, and the impact of support may be different in these populations. Despite this, studies from review 2 found that women perceived the provision of support as positive, important and needed. Studies from review 5 echoed a range of suggestions from participants regarding potential strategies to improve breastfeeding support, with the most widely reported being the need to acknowledge the role and influence of other sources of support (e.g. partners, family, friends, peers, external professionals, web-based resources) and involving these sources in the provision of breastfeeding support for women with long-term conditions. In reviews 3 and 6, there was uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding support interventions due to the limited number of studies and lack of good-quality evidence. Limitations: There was a lack of evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding interventions in the UK. There was often insufficient information reported about intervention characteristics. Conclusions: 'Breastfeeding only' support probably reduces the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding. The evidence for 'breastfeeding plus' interventions is less consistent, but these may reduce the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and at 6 months. We found no evidence of differential intervention effects regarding mode of provision or provider. Cost-effectiveness is uncertain due to the lack of good-quality evidence. Key enablers of successful implementation were responsiveness and tailoring of interventions to both women's and supporters' needs. Breastfeeding support as delivered in the included studies probably has little to no effect on breastfeeding outcomes for women with long-term conditions. The mixed-methods synthesis and stakeholder work identified that existing interventions may not address the complex needs of these women. The main study output is a co-produced toolkit to guide implementation and evaluation of breastfeeding support services in the UK. Future work: Evaluation of breastfeeding support for all women, particularly those at risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes (e.g. long-term conditions, deprivation). This could involve tailoring the toolkit to local contexts via implementation and effectiveness studies or using quality improvement studies. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022337239, CRD42021229769 and CRD42022374509. The reviews of economic evidence were not registered; however, the review protocol can be accessed via the repository held by Queen's University Belfast Research Portal (https://pure.qub.ac.uk/). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130995) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

We know that breastfeeding is good for the health of mothers and babies, yet many mothers experience difficulties and stop breastfeeding before they want to. This is noticeable among women living in disadvantaged areas where there are low rates of breastfeeding. Good support may help women overcome difficulties so that they can continue to breastfeed. Women with chronic illnesses such as diabetes and depression face additional challenges in breastfeeding. We wanted to understand how to improve breastfeeding support for UK women. We brought together previous scientific studies to learn about what works. We also spoke with parents and service providers. We combined all our findings into a toolkit to help the NHS improve breastfeeding support for women. We found that, for healthy women, some forms of breastfeeding support can probably help reduce the number of women stopping breastfeeding and help them breastfeed exclusively. For women with chronic illnesses, we found that the types of support used in the studies probably did not help women to breastfeed. Most of the evidence did not come from the UK. We identified barriers to providing breastfeeding support for all women, especially those who are disadvantaged. We identified strategies that could help the NHS overcome these barriers. There was a lack of evidence on how cost-effective these interventions are compared with usual care, but parents and providers saw the value of paying for breastfeeding support. Giving women targeted breastfeeding support will help them to breastfeed; however, we need to test if this support works in the NHS. We also need to develop additional services for women with chronic illnesses. The NHS could use our findings to improve support for all breastfeeding women by identifying specific barriers and using evidence-based strategies to overcome them.

Infant feeding. 5. Managing baby related feeding challenges.

'Infant feeding' is the 12th series of 'Midwifery basics' targeted at practising midwives. The aim of these articles is to inform and encourage readers to seek further information through a series of activities relating to the topic. In this fifth article Joyce Marshall considers a range of baby related issues that pose challenges for both mothers and midwives in relation to infant feeding.

Association between timing of introducing solid foods and obesity in infancy and childhood: a systematic review.

Determining early-life risk factors for obesity in later life is essential in order to effectively target preventative interventions to reduce obesity. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate current evidence to determine whether the timing of introducing solid foods is associated with obesity in infancy and childhood. Relevant randomized and observational studies from developed countries were identified by searching the following six bio-medical databases (Medline, Embase, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, Maternity and Infant Care, and PsycINFO) and hand-searching reference lists. Studies of pre-term or low birthweight infants were excluded. Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Data from over 34,000 participants were available for interpretative analysis. No clear association between the age of introduction of solid foods and obesity was found. It is likely that a whole family approach to obesity prevention will be most effective and health professionals should continue to promote healthy infant feeding in line with national recommendations.

Motherhood, breastfeeding and identity.

Breastfeeding becomes part of a woman's identity as she enters the journey into motherhood. As women face the challenge of balancing the care of a new baby with the rest of life they come across many different ideas about the qualities of a 'good mother' from within their social networks. Throughout their journey into motherhood women weigh up information about breastfeeding in relation to this as they decide what to do. This article identifies the kinds of knowledge women draw on that reinforce their idea of themselves as 'good mothers' and the implications of this for midwifery practice.