How does integrated knowledge translation (IKT) compare to other collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge? Learning from experts in the field.

BACKGROUND: Research funders in Canada and abroad have made substantial investments in supporting collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge as it is believed to increase knowledge use. Canadian health research funders have advocated for the use of integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health research, however, there is limited research around how IKT compares to other collaborative research approaches. Our objective was to better understand how IKT compares with engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production and participatory research by identifying the differences and similarities among them in order to provide conceptual clarity and reduce researcher and knowledge user confusion about these common approaches. METHODS: We employed a qualitative descriptive method using interview data to better understand experts' perspectives and experiences on collaborative research approaches. Participants' responses were analysed through thematic analysis to elicit core themes. The analysis was centred around the concept of IKT, as it is the most recent approach; IKT was then compared and contrasted with engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production and participatory research. As this was an iterative process, data triangulation and member-checking were conducted with participants to ensure accuracy of the emergent themes and analysis process. RESULTS: Differences were noted in the orientation (i.e. original purpose), historical roots (i.e. disciplinary origin) and partnership/engagement (i.e. role of partners etc.). Similarities among the approaches included (1) true partnerships rather than simple engagement, (2) focus on essential components and processes rather than labels, (3) collaborative research orientations rather than research methods, (4) core values and principles, and (5) extensive time and financial investment. Core values and principles among the approaches included co-creation, reciprocity, trust, fostering relationships, respect, co-learning, active participation, and shared decision-making in the generation and application of knowledge. All approaches require extensive time and financial investment to develop and maintain true partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study is the first to systematically synthesise experts' perspectives and experiences in a comparison of collaborative research approaches. This work contributes to developing a shared understanding of collaborative research approaches to facilitate conceptual clarity in use, reporting, indexing and communication among researchers, trainees, knowledge users and stakeholders to advance IKT and implementation science.

Understanding the experiences of married Southern African women in protecting themselves from HIV/AIDS: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.

Background: Whilst marriage has been repeatedly identified in the literature as an HIV risk factor amongst Southern African women, not much is known about women's perception of their role, experiences and strategies used to address HIV risks in the context of a marriage. Aims: The aim of the study was to synthesise perceptions, experiences and strategies of married Southern African women in the prevention of HIV. Methods: A systematic review of qualitative studies was conducted. Three electronic databases (Medline, Cinahl and PsycINFO) were systematically searched to identify relevant literature. The meta-synthesis process followed Sandelowski and Barroso's [2007. Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. Springer Publishing Company] recommendations. Results: Of 7 609 papers, 15 were included in the review. The quality of the included studies was variable. In the final synthesis stage, three broad analytic themes emerged: contextual background, cues to preventive behaviour, and HIV prevention strategies. Implications: Findings were used to develop a conceptual framework for studying HIV/AIDS prevention experiences of married Southern African women.

Valuing breastfeeding: a qualitative study of women's experiences of a financial incentive scheme for breastfeeding.

BACKGROUND: A cluster randomised controlled trial of a financial incentive for breastfeeding conducted in areas with low breastfeeding rates in the UK reported a statistically significant increase in breastfeeding at 6-8 weeks. In this paper we report an analysis of interviews with women eligible for the scheme, exploring their experiences and perceptions of the scheme and its impact on breastfeeding to support the interpretation of the results of the trial. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 35 women eligible for the scheme during the feasibility and trial stages. All interviews were recorded and verbatim transcripts analysed using a Framework Analysis approach. RESULTS: Women reported that their decisions about infant feeding were influenced by the behaviours and beliefs of their family and friends, socio-cultural norms and by health and practical considerations. They were generally positive about the scheme, and felt valued for the effort involved in breastfeeding. The vouchers were frequently described as a reward, a bonus and something to look forward to, and helping women keep going with their breastfeeding. They were often perceived as compensation for the difficulties women encountered during breastfeeding. The scheme was not thought to make a difference to mothers who were strongly against breastfeeding. However, women did believe the scheme would help normalise breastfeeding, influence those who were undecided and help women to keep going with breastfeeding and reach key milestones e.g. 6 weeks or 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The scheme was acceptable to women, who perceived it as rewarding and valuing them for breastfeeding. Women reported that the scheme could raise awareness of breastfeeding and encourage its normalisation. This provides a possible mechanism of action to explain the results of the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number 44898617 , https://www.isrctn.com.

Asking different questions: A call to action for research to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child.

Despite decades of considerable economic investment in improving the health of families and newborns world-wide, aspirations for maternal and newborn health have yet to be attained in many regions. The global turn toward recognizing the importance of positive experiences of pregnancy, intrapartum and postnatal care, and care in the first weeks of life, while continuing to work to minimize adverse outcomes, signals a critical change in the maternal and newborn health care conversation and research prioritization. This paper presents "different research questions" drawing on evidence presented in the 2014 Lancet Series on Midwifery and a research prioritization study conducted with the World Health Organization. The results indicated that future research investment in maternal and newborn health should be on "right care," which is quality care that is tailored to individuals, weighs benefits and harms, is person-centered, works across the whole continuum of care, advances equity, and is informed by evidence, including cost-effectiveness. Three inter-related research themes were identified: examination and implementation of models of care that enhance both well-being and safety; investigating and optimizing physiological, psychological, and social processes in pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period; and development and validation of outcome measures that capture short and longer term well-being. New, transformative research approaches should account for the underlying social and political-economic mechanisms that enhance or constrain the well-being of women, newborns, families, and societies. Investment in research capacity and capability building across all settings is critical, but especially in those countries that bear the greatest burden of poor outcomes. We believe this call to action for investment in the three research priorities identified in this paper has the potential to achieve these benefits and to realize the ambitions of Sustainable Development Goal Three of good health and well-being for all.

Routinely collected infant feeding data: Time for global action.

The importance of breastfeeding is clear. However, global action to support breastfeeding is hindered by the lack of reliable standard data, which continues to impede progress. Routinely collected data can monitor the effectiveness of health policy, evaluate interventions, and enhance international research collaboration and comparisons. Use of routine data to support effective public health initiatives such as smoking cessation has been demonstrated. However, the data collected about infant feeding practices worldwide is inconsistent in timing, methods, definitions, detail, storage, and consistency. Improvements to the reach and quality of routinely collected data about infant feeding are needed to strengthen the global evidence and policy base. An international collaborative effort is called for to progress this.

Breastfeeding education and support for women with twins or higher order multiples.

BACKGROUND: There are rising rates of multiple births worldwide with associated higher rates of complications and more hospital care, often due to prematurity. While there is strong evidence about the risks of not breastfeeding, rates of breastfeeding in women who have given birth to more than one infant are lower than with singleton births. Breastfeeding more than one infant can be more challenging because of difficulties associated with the birth or prematurity. The extra demands on the mother of frequent suckling, coordinating the needs of more than one infant or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit can lead to delayed initiation or early cessation. Additional options such as breast milk expression, the use of donor milk or different methods of supplementary feeding may be considered. Support and education about breastfeeding has been found to improve the duration of any breastfeeding for healthy term infants and their mothers, however evidence is lacking about interventions that are effective to support women with twins or higher order multiples. OBJECTIVES: To assess effectiveness of breastfeeding education and support for women with twins or higher order multiples. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 June 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 July 2016), the excluded studies list from the equivalent Cochrane review of singletons, and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing extra education or support for women with twins or higher order multiples were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We planned to assess the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach, but were unable to analyse any data. MAIN RESULTS: We found 10 trials (23 reports) of education and support for breastfeeding that included women with twins or higher order multiples. The quality of evidence was mixed, and the risk of bias was mostly high or unclear. It is difficult to blind women or staff to group allocation for this intervention, so in all studies there was high risk of performance and high or unclear risk of detection bias. Trials recruited 5787 women (this included 512 women interviewed as part of a cluster randomised trial); of these, data were available from two studies for 42 women with twins or higher order multiples. None of the interventions were specifically designed for women with more than one infant, and the outcomes for multiples were not reported separately for each infant. Due to the scarcity of evidence and the format in which data were reported, a narrative description of the data is presented, no analyses are presented in this review, and we were unable to GRADE the evidence.The two trials with data for women with multiple births compared home nurse visits versus usual care (15 women), and telephone peer counselling versus usual care (27 women). The number of women who initiated breastfeeding was reported (all 15 women in one study, 25 out of 27 women in one study). Stopping any breastfeeding before four to six weeks postpartum, stopping exclusive breastfeeding before four to six weeks postpartum, stopping any breastfeeding before six months postpartum andstopping exclusive breastfeeding before six months postpartum were not explicitly reported, and there were insufficient data to draw any meaningful conclusions from survival data. Stopping breast milk expression before four to six weeks postpartum, andstopping breast milk expression before six months postpartum were not reported. Measures ofmaternal satisfaction were reported in one study of 15 women, but there were insufficient data to draw any conclusions; no other secondary outcomes were reported for women with multiple births in either study. No adverse events were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence from randomised controlled trials about the effectiveness of breastfeeding education and support for women with twins or higher order multiples, or the most effective way to provide education and support . There was no evidence about the best way to deliver the intervention, the timing of care, or the best person to deliver the care. There is a need for well-designed, adequately powered studies of interventions designed for women with twins or higher order multiples to find out what types of education and support are effective in helping these mothers to breastfeed their babies.

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: To describe forms of breastfeeding support which have been evaluated in controlled studies, the timing of the interventions and the settings in which they have been used.To examine the effectiveness of different modes of offering similar supportive interventions (for example, whether the support offered was proactive or reactive, face-to-face or over the telephone), and whether interventions containing both antenatal and postnatal elements were more effective than those taking place in the postnatal period alone.To examine the effectiveness of different care providers and (where information was available) training.To explore the interaction between background breastfeeding rates and effectiveness of support. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (29 February 2016) 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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 100 trials involving more than 83,246 mother-infant pairs of which 73 studies contribute data (58 individually-randomised trials and 15 cluster-randomised trials). We considered that the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Of the 31 new studies included in this update, 21 provided data for one or more of the primary outcomes. The total number of mother-infant pairs in the 73 studies that contributed data to this review is 74,656 (this total was 56,451 in the previous version of this review). The 73 studies were conducted in 29 countries. Results of the analyses continue to confirm that all forms of extra support analyzed together showed a decrease in cessation of 'any breastfeeding', which includes partial and exclusive breastfeeding (average risk ratio (RR) for stopping any breastfeeding before six months 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 51 studies) and for stopping breastfeeding before four to six weeks (average RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 33 studies). All forms of extra support together also showed a decrease in cessation of exclusive breastfeeding at six months (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence, 46 studies) and at four to six weeks (average RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89; moderate quality, 32 studies). We downgraded evidence to moderate-quality due to very high heterogeneity.We investigated substantial heterogeneity for all four outcomes with subgroup analyses for the following covariates: who delivered care, type of support, timing of support, background breastfeeding rate and number of postnatal contacts. Covariates were not able to explain heterogeneity in general. Though the interaction tests were significant for some analyses, we advise caution in the interpretation of results for subgroups due to the heterogeneity. Extra support by both lay and professionals had a positive impact on breastfeeding outcomes. Several factors may have also improved results for women practising exclusive breastfeeding, such as interventions delivered with a face-to-face component, high background initiation rates of breastfeeding, lay support, and a specific schedule of four to eight contacts. However, because within-group heterogeneity remained high for all of these analyses, we advise caution when making specific conclusions based on subgroup results. We noted no evidence for subgroup differences for the any breastfeeding outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When breastfeeding support is offered to women, the duration and exclusivity of breastfeeding is increased. Characteristics of effective support include: that it is offered as standard by trained personnel during antenatal or postnatal care, that it includes ongoing scheduled visits so that women can predict when support will be available, and that it is tailored to the setting and the needs of the population group. Support is likely to be more effective in settings with high initiation rates. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Strategies that rely mainly on face-to-face support are more likely to succeed with women practising exclusive breastfeeding.

Antenatal care trial interventions: a systematic scoping review and taxonomy development of care models.

BACKGROUND: Antenatal care models vary widely around the world, reflecting local contexts, drivers and resources. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have tested the impact of multi-component antenatal care interventions on service delivery and outcomes in many countries since the 1980s. Some have applied entirely new schemes, while others have modified existing care delivery approaches. Systematic reviews (SRs) indicate that some specific antenatal interventions are more effective than others; however the causal mechanisms leading to better outcomes are poorly understood, limiting implementation and future research. As a first step in identifying what might be making the difference we conducted a scoping review of interventions tested in RCTs in order to establish a taxonomy of antenatal care models. METHODS: A protocol-driven systematic search was undertaken of databases for RCTs and SRs reporting antenatal care interventions. Results were unrestricted by time or locality, but limited to English language. Key characteristics of both experimental and control interventions in the included trials were mapped using SPIO (Study design; Population; Intervention; Outcomes) criteria and the intervention and principal outcome measures were described. Commonalities and differences between the components that were being tested in each study were identified by consensus, resulting in a comprehensive description of emergent models for antenatal care interventions. RESULTS: Of 13,050 articles retrieved, we identified 153 eligible articles including 130 RCTs in 34 countries. The interventions tested in these trials varied from the number of visits to the location of care provision, and from the content of care to the professional/lay group providing that care. In most studies neither intervention nor control arm was well described. Our analysis of the identified trials of antenatal care interventions produced the following taxonomy: Universal provision model (for all women irrespective of health state or complications); Restricted 'lower-risk'-based provision model (midwifery-led or reduced/flexible visit approach for healthy women); Augmented provision model (antenatal care as in Universal provision above but augmented by clinical, educational or behavioural intervention); Targeted 'higher-risk'-based provision model (for woman with defined clinical or socio-demographic risk factors). The first category was most commonly tested in low-income countries (i.e. resource-poor settings), particularly in Asia. The other categories were tested around the world. The trials included a range of care providers, including midwives, nurses, doctors, and lay workers. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions can be defined and described in many ways. The intended antenatal care population group proved the simplest and most clinically relevant way of distinguishing trials which might otherwise be categorised together. Since our review excluded non-trial interventions, the taxonomy does not represent antenatal care provision worldwide. It offers a stable and reproducible approach to describing the purpose and content of models of antenatal care which have been tested in a trial. It highlights a lack of reported detail of trial interventions and usual care processes. It provides a baseline for future work to examine and test the salient characteristics of the most effective models, and could also help decision-makers and service planners in planning implementation.

Interventions for promoting the initiation of breastfeeding.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widely documented risks of not breastfeeding, initiation rates remain relatively low in many high-income countries, particularly among women in lower-income groups. In low- and middle-income countries, many women do not follow World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations to initiate breastfeeding within the first hour after birth. This is an update of a Cochrane Review, first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe health promotion activities intended to increase the initiation rate of breastfeeding.To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding promotion activities, in terms of changing the number of women who initiate breastfeeding.To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding promotion activities, in terms of changing the number of women who initiate breastfeeding early (within one hour after birth). SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (29 February 2016) and scanned reference lists of all articles obtained. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with or without blinding, of any breastfeeding promotion intervention in any population group, except women and infants with a specific health problem. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial reports for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trial quality. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and a third review author was involved when necessary. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-eight trials involving 107,362 women in seven countries are included in this updated review. Five studies involving 3,124 women did not contribute outcome data and we excluded them from the analyses. The methodological quality of the included trials was mixed, with significant numbers of studies at high or unclear risk of bias due to: inadequate allocation concealment (N = 20); lack of blinding of outcome assessment (N = 20); incomplete outcome data (N = 19); selective reporting (N = 22) and bias from other potential sources (N = 17). Healthcare professional-led breastfeeding education and support versus standard care The studies pooled here compare professional health workers delivering breastfeeding education and support during the prenatal and postpartum periods with standard care. Interventions included promotion campaigns and counselling, and all took place in a formal setting. There was evidence from five trials involving 564 women for improved rates ofbreastfeeding initiation among women who received healthcare professional-led breastfeeding education and support (average risk ratio (RR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.92; Tau² = 0.07, I² = 62%, low-quality evidence) compared to those women who received standard care. We downgraded evidence due to design limitations and heterogeneity. The outcome of early initiation of breastfeeding was not reported in the studies under this comparison. Non-healthcare professional-led breastfeeding education and support versus standard care There was evidence from eight trials of 5712 women for improved rates of breastfeeding initiation among women who received interventions from non-healthcare professional counsellors and support groups (average RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.40; Tau² = 0.02, I² = 86%, low-quality evidence) compared to women who received standard care. In three trials of 76,373 women, there was no clear difference between groups in terms of the number of women practicing early initiation of breastfeeding (average RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.95; Tau² = 0.18, I² = 78%, very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for a combination of design limitations, heterogeneity and imprecision (wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect). Other comparisonsOther comparisons in this review also looked at the rates of initiation of breastfeeding and there were no clear differences between groups for the following comparisons of combined healthcare professional-led education with peer support or community educator versus standard care (2 studies, 1371 women) or attention control (1 study, 237 women), breastfeeding education using multimedia (a self-help manual or a video) versus routine care (2 studies, 497 women); early mother-infant contact versus standard care (2 studies, 309 women); and community-based breastfeeding groups versus no breastfeeding groups (1 study, 18,603 women). None of these comparisons reported data on early initiation of breastfeeding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found low-quality evidence that healthcare professional-led breastfeeding education and non-healthcare professional-led counselling and peer support interventions can result in some improvements in the number of women beginning to breastfeed. The majority of the trials were conducted in the USA, among women on low incomes and who varied in ethnicity and feeding intention, thus limiting the generalisability of these results to other settings.Future studies would ideally be conducted in a range of low- and high-income settings, with data on breastfeeding rates over various timeframes, and explore the effectiveness of interventions that are initiated prior to conception or during pregnancy. These might include well-described interventions, including health education, early and continuing mother-infant contact, and initiatives to help mothers overcome societal barriers to breastfeeding, all with clearly defined outcome measures.

Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care.

BACKGROUND: Implementing effective antenatal care models is a key global policy goal. However, the mechanisms of action of these multi-faceted models that would allow widespread implementation are seldom examined and poorly understood. In existing care model analyses there is little distinction between what is done, how it is done, and who does it. A new evidence-informed quality maternal and newborn care (QMNC) framework identifies key characteristics of quality care. This offers the opportunity to identify systematically the characteristics of care delivery that may be generalizable across contexts, thereby enhancing implementation. Our objective was to map the characteristics of antenatal care models tested in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) to a new evidence-based framework for quality maternal and newborn care; thus facilitating the identification of characteristics of effective care. METHODS: A systematic review of RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models. Mapping and evaluation of these models' characteristics to the QMNC framework using data extraction and scoring forms derived from the five framework components. Paired team members independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment using the QMNC framework and standard RCT criteria. RESULTS: From 13,050 citations initially retrieved we identified 17 RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models from Australia (7), the UK (4), China (2), and Sweden, Ireland, Mexico and Canada (1 each). QMNC framework scores ranged from 9 to 25 (possible range 0-32), with most models reporting fewer than half the characteristics associated with quality maternity care. Description of care model characteristics was lacking in many studies, but was better reported for the intervention arms. Organisation of care was the best-described component. Underlying values and philosophy of care were poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS: The QMNC framework facilitates assessment of the characteristics of antenatal care models. It is vital to understand all the characteristics of multi-faceted interventions such as care models; not only what is done but why it is done, by whom, and how this differed from the standard care package. By applying the QMNC framework we have established a foundation for future reports of intervention studies so that the characteristics of individual models can be evaluated, and the impact of any differences appraised.

Global trends and patterns of commercial milk-based formula sales: is an unprecedented infant and young child feeding transition underway?

OBJECTIVE: The marketing of infant/child milk-based formulas (MF) contributes to suboptimal breast-feeding and adversely affects child and maternal health outcomes globally. However, little is known about recent changes in MF markets. The present study describes contemporary trends and patterns of MF sales at the global, regional and country levels. DESIGN: Descriptive statistics of trends and patterns in MF sales volume per infant/child for the years 2008-2013 and projections to 2018, using industry-sourced data. SETTING: Eighty countries categorized by country income bracket, for developing countries by region, and in countries with the largest infant/child populations. SUBJECTS: MF categories included total (for ages 0-36 months), infant (0-6 months), follow-up (7-12 months), toddler (13-36 months) and special (0-6 months). RESULTS: In 2008-2013 world total MF sales grew by 40·8 % from 5·5 to 7·8 kg per infant/child/year, a figure predicted to increase to 10·8 kg by 2018. Growth was most rapid in East Asia particularly in China, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam and was led by the infant and follow-up formula categories. Sales volume per infant/child was positively associated with country income level although with wide variability between countries. CONCLUSIONS: A global infant and young child feeding (IYCF) transition towards diets higher in MF is underway and is expected to continue apace. The observed increase in MF sales raises serious concern for global child and maternal health, particularly in East Asia, and calls into question the efficacy of current regulatory regimes designed to protect and promote optimal IYCF. The observed changes have not been captured by existing IYCF monitoring systems.

Breastfeeding in England: time trends 2005-2006 to 2012-2013 and inequalities by area profile.

Breastfeeding rates in England have risen steadily since the 1970s, but rates remain low and little is known about area-based trends. We report an ecological analysis of time trends in area breastfeeding rates in England using annual data on breastfeeding initiation (2005-2006 to 2012-2013) and any breastfeeding at 6-8 weeks (2008-2009 to 2012-2013) for 151 primary care trusts (PCTs). Overall, breastfeeding initiation rose from 65.5% in 2005-2006 to 72.4% in 2012-2013 (average annual absolute increase 0.9%). There was a statistically significantly higher (interaction P < 0.001) annual increase in initiation in PCTs in the most deprived (1.2%) compared with the least deprived tertile (0.7%), and in PCTs with low baseline breastfeeding initiation (2005-2006; 1.4%) compared with high baseline initiation (0.6%). Similar trends were observed when PCTs were stratified by the proportion of teenage mothers and maternal smoking, but not when stratified by ethnicity. Although breastfeeding prevalence at 6-8 weeks also increased significantly over the observed time period (41.2% in 2008-2009, 43.7% in 2012-2013; annual increase 0.7%), there was no difference in the average increase by deprivation profile, ethnicity, teenage mothers and maternal smoking. However, PCTs with low baseline prevalence in 2008-2009 saw a significantly larger annual increase (0.8%) compared with PCTs with high baseline prevalence (0.07%). In conclusion, breastfeeding initiation and prevalence have seen higher increases in areas with low initial breastfeeding, and for initiation, more disadvantaged areas. Although these results suggest that inequalities in breastfeeding have narrowed, rates have plateaued since 2010-2011. Sustained efforts are needed to address breastfeeding inequalities.

Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care.

In this first paper in a series of four papers on midwifery, we aimed to examine, comprehensively and systematically, the contribution midwifery can make to the quality of care of women and infants globally, and the role of midwives and others in providing midwifery care. Drawing on international definitions and current practice, we mapped the scope of midwifery. We then developed a framework for quality maternal and newborn care using a mixed-methods approach including synthesis of findings from systematic reviews of women's views and experiences, effective practices, and maternal and newborn care providers. The framework differentiates between what care is provided and how and by whom it is provided, and describes the care and services that childbearing women and newborn infants need in all settings. We identified more than 50 short-term, medium-term, and long-term outcomes that could be improved by care within the scope of midwifery; reduced maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, reduced stillbirth and preterm birth, decreased number of unnecessary interventions, and improved psychosocial and public health outcomes. Midwifery was associated with more efficient use of resources and improved outcomes when provided by midwives who were educated, trained, licensed, and regulated. Our findings support a system-level shift from maternal and newborn care focused on identification and treatment of pathology for the minority to skilled care for all. This change includes preventive and supportive care that works to strengthen women's capabilities in the context of respectful relationships, is tailored to their needs, focuses on promotion of normal reproductive processes, and in which first-line management of complications and accessible emergency treatment are provided when needed. Midwifery is pivotal to this approach, which requires effective interdisciplinary teamwork and integration across facility and community settings. Future planning for maternal and newborn care systems can benefit from using the quality framework in planning workforce development and resource allocation.

Improvement of maternal and newborn health through midwifery.

In the concluding paper of this Series about midwifery, we look at the policy implications from the framework for quality maternal and newborn care, the potential effect of life-saving interventions that fall within the scope of practice of midwives, and the historic sequence of health system changes that made a reduction in maternal mortality possible in countries that have expanded their midwifery workforce. Achievement of better health outcomes for women and newborn infants is possible, but needs improvements in the quality of reproductive, maternal, and newborn care, alongside necessary increases in universal coverage. In this report, we propose three priority research areas and outline how national investment in midwives and in their work environment, education, regulation, and management can improve quality of care. Midwifery and midwives are crucial to the achievement of national and international goals and targets in reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health; now and beyond 2015.

Healthcare providers' views on the acceptability of financial incentives for breastfeeding: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Despite a gradual increase in breastfeeding rates, overall in the UK there are wide variations, with a trend towards breastfeeding rates at 6-8 weeks remaining below 40% in less affluent areas. While financial incentives have been used with varying success to encourage positive health related behaviour change, there is little research on their use in encouraging breastfeeding. In this paper, we report on healthcare providers' views around whether using financial incentives in areas with low breastfeeding rates would be acceptable in principle. This research was part of a larger project looking at the development and feasibility testing of a financial incentive scheme for breastfeeding in preparation for a cluster randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Fifty-three healthcare providers were interviewed about their views on financial incentives for breastfeeding. Participants were purposively sampled to include a wide range of experience and roles associated with supporting mothers with infant feeding. Semi-structured individual and group interviews were conducted. Data were analysed thematically drawing on the principles of Framework Analysis. RESULTS: The key theme emerging from healthcare providers' views on the acceptability of financial incentives for breastfeeding was their possible impact on 'facilitating or impeding relationships'. Within this theme several additional aspects were discussed: the mother's relationship with her healthcare provider and services, with her baby and her family, and with the wider community. In addition, a key priority for healthcare providers was that an incentive scheme should not impact negatively on their professional integrity and responsibility towards women. CONCLUSION: Healthcare providers believe that financial incentives could have both positive and negative impacts on a mother's relationship with her family, baby and healthcare provider. When designing a financial incentive scheme we must take care to minimise the potential negative impacts that have been highlighted, while at the same time recognising the potential positive impacts for women in areas where breastfeeding rates are low.

Can food vouchers improve nutrition and reduce health inequalities in low-income mothers and young children: a multi-method evaluation of the experiences of beneficiaries and practitioners of the Healthy Start programme in England.

BACKGROUND: Good nutrition is important during pregnancy, breastfeeding and early life to optimise the health of women and children. It is difficult for low-income families to prioritise spending on healthy food. Healthy Start is a targeted United Kingdom (UK) food subsidy programme that gives vouchers for fruit, vegetables, milk, and vitamins to low-income families. This paper reports an evaluation of Healthy Start from the perspectives of women and health practitioners. METHODS: The multi-method study conducted in England in 2011/2012 included focus group discussions with 49 health practitioners, an online consultation with 620 health and social care practitioners, service managers, commissioners, and user and advocacy groups, and qualitative participatory workshops with 85 low-income women. Additional focus group discussions and telephone interviews included the views of 25 women who did not speak English and three women from Traveller communities. RESULTS: Women reported that Healthy Start vouchers increased the quantity and range of fruit and vegetables they used and improved the quality of family diets, and established good habits for the future. Barriers to registration included complex eligibility criteria, inappropriate targeting of information about the programme by health practitioners and a general low level of awareness among families. Access to the programme was particularly challenging for women who did not speak English, had low literacy levels, were in low paid work or had fluctuating incomes. The potential impact was undermined by the rising price of food relative to voucher value. Access to registered retailers was problematic in rural areas, and there was low registration among smaller shops and market stalls, especially those serving culturally diverse communities. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation of the Healthy Start programme in England suggests that a food subsidy programme can provide an important nutritional safety net and potentially improve nutrition for pregnant women and young children living on low incomes. Factors that could compromise this impact include erosion of voucher value relative to the rising cost of food, lack of access to registered retailers and barriers to registering for the programme. Addressing these issues could inform the design and implementation of food subsidy programmes in high income countries.

Breastfeeding and educational achievement at age 5.

Our aim was to investigate whether the duration of breastfeeding, at all or exclusively, is associated with educational achievement at age 5. We used data from a prospective, population-based UK cohort study, the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS). 5489 children from White ethnic background born at term in 2000-2001, attending school in England in 2006, were included in our analyses. Educational achievement was measured using the Foundation Stage Profile (FSP), a statutory assessment undertaken by teachers at the end of the child's first school year. Breastfeeding duration was ascertained from interviews with the mother when the child was 9 months old. We used modified Poisson's regression to model the association of breastfeeding duration with having reached a good level of achievement overall (≥78 overall points and ≥6 in 'personal, social and emotional development' and 'communication, language and literacy' points) and in specific areas (≥6 points) of development. Children who had been breastfed for up to 2 months were more likely to have reached a good level of overall achievement [adjusted rate ratio (RR): 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01, 1.19] than never breastfed children. This association was more marked in children breastfed for 2-4 months (adjusted RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.29) and in those breastfed for longer than 4 months (adjusted RR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.26). The associations of exclusive breastfeeding with the educational achievement were similar. Our findings suggest that longer duration of breastfeeding, at all or exclusively, is associated with better educational achievement at age 5.

Mapping breastfeeding services: a method to inform effective implementation and evaluation of evidence-based policy in practice.

This paper aims to introduce a method for mapping local service provision to local demographic and health outcome data, to inform evidence-based policy and practice in public health. A mapping exercise was conducted in London, England with the aims of: (1) describing services provided for breastfeeding women in primary and tertiary health care sectors and government, voluntary and private sectors; and (2) linking this information with routine data on deprivation, breastfeeding rates and health outcomes. Quantitative data on local breastfeeding services were collected via an online questionnaire by a designated 'mapping lead' in each locality. Data were collected at the level of individual health care organisations on the provision, nature and management of breastfeeding services, and related organisational inputs such as leadership, staffing, accreditation and policy. Demographic and health outcome data were identified from existing routine national data collections. Ninety-one per cent of eligible acute and primary care organisations participated in the mapping exercise. A range of mapping tools and profile were developed and launched in 2009 (http://atlas.chimat.org.uk/IAS/dataviews/view?viewId=66). These tools can be used for descriptive analyses of service provision on the basis of local need. Comparative analyses on the impact of service provision on breastfeeding or health outcomes will be feasible from 18 months of data collection onwards. This case study has demonstrated the potential utility of this mapping method to inform effective implementation and evaluation of public health policy in practice consistent with the World Health Organisation framework. Formal evaluation of the utility of the tools is recommended.

Does cultural context make a difference to women's experiences of maternity care? A qualitative study comparing the perspectives of breast-feeding women of Bangladeshi origin and health practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Maternity services struggle to provide culturally appropriate care that meets the needs of women from diverse populations. Problems include simplistic understandings of ethnicity and the role of culture in women's lives, and stereotypes held by health practitioners. OBJECTIVE: To explore the extent to which cultural context makes a difference to experiences of breast-feeding support for women of Bangladeshi origin and to consider the implications for the provision of culturally appropriate care. METHODS: The study comprised individual interviews with 23 women of Bangladeshi origin and four health service managers, and focus group discussions with 28 health practitioners between February and December 2008. Participants were recruited from four localities in northern England. RESULTS: Women's rich descriptions of various facets of their identities were in contrast to practitioners' representations of women of Bangladeshi origin as homogenous. Practitioners did not recognize when the needs of women of Bangladeshi origin were similar to those of the majority white population, or where cultural context made a difference to their experiences of breast-feeding and breast-feeding support. Some practitioners used cultural stereotypes which, combined with organizational constraints, resulted in services not meeting many of the women's needs. CONCLUSIONS: Implications for education, policy and practice include the need for training of health practitioners to work with diverse populations, implementing evidence-based practice and providing an organizational context which supports practitioners to respond to diversity without using cultural stereotypes.