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.

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.

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.

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.

Counselling interventions to enable women to initiate and continue breastfeeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Many infants worldwide are not breastfeeding according to WHO recommendations and this impacts on the health of women and children. Increasing breastfeeding is identified as a priority area supported by current policy targets. However, interventions are complex and multi-component and it is unclear which elements of interventions are most effective to increase breastfeeding in which settings. Breastfeeding counselling is often part of complex interventions but evidence is lacking on the specific effect of counselling interventions on breastfeeding practices. The aim of this systematic review is to examine evidence on effectiveness of breastfeeding counselling to inform global guidelines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted of six electronic databases in January 2018. Randomised controlled trials comparing breastfeeding counselling with no breastfeeding counselling or different formulations of counselling were included if they measured breastfeeding practices between birth and 24 months after birth. Results: From the 5180 records identified in searches and a further 11 records found by hand searching, 63 studies were included. Of these, 48 were individually-randomised trials and 15 were cluster-randomised trials. A total of 69 relevant comparisons were reported involving 33,073 women. There was a significant effect of counselling interventions on any breastfeeding at 4 to 6 weeks (Relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.77, 0.94) and 6 months (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87, 0.94). Greater effects were found on exclusive breastfeeding at 4 to 6 weeks (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72, 0.87) and 6 months (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78, 0.91). Counselling delivered at least four times postnatally is more effective than counselling delivered antenatally only and/or fewer than four times. Evidence was mostly of low quality due to high or unclear risk of bias of the included trials and high heterogeneity. Conclusions: Breastfeeding counselling is an effective public health intervention to increase rates of any and exclusive breastfeeding. Breastfeeding counselling should be provided face-to-face, and in addition, may be provided by telephone, both antenatally and postnatally, to all pregnant women and mothers with young children. To inform scale-up globally there is a need to further understand the elements of breastfeeding interventions such as counselling and their effectiveness in different contexts and circumstances. Study registration: This systematic review was registered in Prospero (CRD42018086494).

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.

Evaluating the 'Focus on Normal Birth and Reducing Caesarean section Rates Rapid Improvement Programme': A mixed method study in England.

BACKGROUND: caesarean section plays an important role in ensuring safety of mother and infant but rising rates are not accompanied by measurable improvements in maternal or neonatal mortality or morbidity. The 'Focus on Normal Birth and Reducing Caesarean section Rates Rapid Improvement Programme' was a facilitative initiative developed to promote opportunities for normal birth and reduce caesarean section rates in England. OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the 'Focus on Normal Birth and Reducing Caesarean section Rates' programme, by assessment of: impact on caesarean section rates, use of service improvements tools and participants׳ perceptions of factors that sustain or hinder work within participating maternity units. DESIGN: a mixed methods approach included analysis of mode of birth data, web-based questionnaires and in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: twenty Hospital Trusts in England (selected from 68 who applied) took part in the 'Focus on Normal Birth and Reducing Caesarean section Rates Rapid Improvement Programme' initiative. In each hospital Trust, the head of midwifery, an obstetrician, the relevant lead for organisational development, a supervisor of midwives, or a clinical midwife and a service user representative were invited to participate in the independent evaluation. METHODS: collection and analysis of mode of birth data from 20 participating hospital Trusts, web-based questionnaires administered to key individuals in all 20 Trusts and in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews conducted with key individuals in a sample of six Trusts. FINDINGS: there was a marginal decline of 0.5% (25.9% from 26.4%) in mean total caesarean section rate in the period 1 January 2009 to 31 January 2010 compared to the baseline period (1 July-31 December 2008). Reduced total caesarean section rates were achieved in eight trusts, all with higher rates at the beginning of the initiative. Features associated with lower caesarean section rates included a shared philosophy prioritising normal birth, clear communication across disciplines and strong leadership at a range of levels, including executive support and clinical leaders within each discipline. CONCLUSIONS: it is important that the philosophy and organisational context of care are examined to identify potential barriers and facilitative factors.

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.