Facilitators, barriers, and key influencers of breastfeeding among low birthweight infants: a qualitative study in India, Malawi, and Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Low birthweight (LBW) infants are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Exclusive breastfeeding up to six months is recommended to help them thrive through infection prevention, growth improvements, and enhancements in neurodevelopment. However, limited data exist on the feeding experiences of LBW infants, their caregivers and key community influencers. The qualitative component of the Low Birthweight Infant Feeding Exploration (LIFE) study aimed to understand practices, facilitators, and barriers to optimal feeding options in the first six months for LBW infants in low-resource settings. METHODS: This study was conducted in four sites in India, Malawi, and Tanzania from July 2019 to August 2020. We conducted 37 focus group discussions with mothers and family members of LBW infants and community leaders and 142 in-depth interviews with healthcare providers, government officials, and supply chain and donor human milk (DHM) experts. Data were analyzed using a framework approach. RESULTS: All participants believed that mother's own milk was best for LBW infants. Direct breastfeeding was predominant and feeding expressed breast milk and infant formula were rare. DHM was a new concept for most. Adequate maternal nutrition, lactation support, and privacy in the facility aided breastfeeding and expression, but perceived insufficient milk, limited feeding counseling, and infant immaturity were common barriers. Most believed that DHM uptake could be enabled through community awareness by overcoming misconceptions, safety concerns, and perceived family resistance. CONCLUSION: This study fills an evidence gap in LBW infant feeding practices and their facilitators and barriers in resource-limited settings. LBW infants face unique feeding challenges such as poor latching and tiring at the breast. Similarly, their mothers are faced with numerous difficulties, including attainment of adequate milk supply, breast pain and emotional stress. Lactation support and feeding counseling could address obstacles faced by mothers and infants by providing psychosocial, verbal and physical support to empower mothers with skills, knowledge and confidence and facilitate earlier, more and better breast milk feeding. Findings on DHM are critical to the future development of human milk banks and highlight the need to solicit partnership from stakeholders in the community and health system.

Mixed-methods, descriptive and observational cohort study examining feeding and growth patterns among low birthweight infants in India, Malawi and Tanzania: the LIFE study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 will not be possible without evidence-based strategies addressing the health and care of low birthweight (LBW, <2.5 kg) infants. The majority of LBW infants are born in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and account for more than 60%-80% of newborn deaths. Feeding promotion tailored to meet the nutritional needs of LBW infants in LMICs may serve a crucial role in curbing newborn mortality rates and promoting growth. The Low Birthweight Infant Feeding Exploration (LIFE) study aims to establish foundational knowledge regarding optimal feeding options for LBW infants in low-resource settings throughout infancy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: LIFE is a formative, multisite, observational cohort study involving 12 study facilities in India, Malawi and Tanzania, and using a convergent parallel, mixed-methods design. We assess feeding patterns, growth indicators, morbidity, mortality, child development and health system inputs that facilitate or hinder care and survival of LBW infants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by 11 ethics committees in India, Malawi, Tanzania and the USA. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations targeting the global and local research, clinical, programme implementation and policy communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04002908 and CTRI/2019/02/017475.

Implementing Serious Illness Communication Processes in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Primary care clinicians face barriers to engaging patients in conversations about prognosis, values, and goals ("serious illness conversations"). We introduced a structured, multi-component intervention, the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP), to facilitate conversations in the primary care setting. We present findings of a qualitative study to explore practical aspects of program implementation. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews of participating primary care physicians, nurse care coordinators, and social workers and coded transcripts to assess the activities used to integrate SICP into the workflow. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 14 of 46 clinicians from 6 primary care clinics, stopping with thematic saturation. Qualitative analysis revealed major themes around activities in the timing of the conversation (before, during, and after) and overarching insights about the program. Clinicians used a variety of strategies to adapt program components while preserving key program goals, including processes to generate accountability to ensure that conversations happen in busy clinical workflows. The interviews revealed changes to clinicians' mindset and norms, such as the recognition of the need to start conversations earlier in the illness course and the use of more expansive models of prognostic communication that address function and quality of life. Data also revealed indicators of sustainable behavior change and the spread of communication practices to patients outside the intended program scope. CONCLUSION: SICP served as a framework for primary care clinicians to integrate serious illness communication into routine care. The shifts in processes employed by inter-professional clinicians revealed comprehensive models for prognostic communication and creative workflows to ensure that patients with complex illnesses had proactive, longitudinal, and patient-centered serious illness conversations and care planning.

Interprofessional Work in Serious Illness Communication in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

Background: Evidence demonstrates that discussion between clinicians and seriously ill patients about their goals and preferences, or serious illness communication, is a high-value intervention, resulting in growing demand for improvement in this area. Promising efforts address this demand utilizing interprofessional teams; yet, we lack insight into how different professions work together to deliver better serious illness communication. Objective: To explore the perceptions of primary care clinicians about interprofessional work in serious illness communication. Design: Qualitative analysis of semistructured key informant interviews. Settings/Subjects: Primary care clinicians (physicians, care coordination nurses, and social workers) who have experience implementing a structured primary palliative care program, the Serious Illness Care Program, at a large academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts. Results: We derived primary themes and subthemes from participant descriptions of program implementation: the importance and value of interprofessional teams, nurses, and individual initiative; the role of preparation and structure in enabling high-quality communication; and the ways in which attempts to improve serious illness communication reveal other problems that can limit program effectiveness or be perceived as program failures. We derived a conceptual model that illustrates the relationships between interprofessional team interactions, workflows, and perceived program outcomes. Conclusions: This study suggests three key areas of focus for design and implementation of programs aimed at improving serious illness conversations by interprofessional primary care teams: establishing clear professional roles and responsibilities, paying special attention to interprofessional and clinician-patient relationships, and clearly structuring interventions aiming to change the way our system drives serious illness communication.