Feasibility and acceptability of a motivational interviewing breastfeeding peer support intervention.

An uncontrolled study with process evaluation was conducted in three U.K. community maternity sites to establish the feasibility and acceptability of delivering a novel breastfeeding peer-support intervention informed by motivational interviewing (MI; Mam-Kind). Peer-supporters were trained to deliver the Mam-Kind intervention that provided intensive one-to-one peer-support, including (a) antenatal contact, (b) face-to-face contact within 48 hr of birth, (c) proactive (peer-supporter led) alternate day contact for 2 weeks after birth, and (d) mother-led contact for a further 6 weeks. Peer-supporters completed structured diaries and audio-recorded face-to-face sessions with mothers. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of mothers, health professionals, and all peer-supporters. Interview data were analysed thematically to assess intervention acceptability. Audio-recorded peer-support sessions were assessed for intervention fidelity and the use of MI techniques, using the MITI 4.2 tool. Eight peer-supporters delivered the Mam-Kind intervention to 70 mothers in three National Health Service maternity services. Qualitative interviews with mothers (n = 28), peer-supporters (n = 8), and health professionals (n = 12) indicated that the intervention was acceptable, and health professionals felt it could be integrated with existing services. There was high fidelity to intervention content; 93% of intervention objectives were met during sessions. However, peer-supporters reported difficulties in adapting from an expert-by-experience role to a collaborative role. We have established the feasibility and acceptability of providing breastfeeding peer-support using a MI-informed approach. Refinement of the intervention is needed to further develop peer-supporters' skills in providing mother-centred support. The refined intervention should be tested for effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial.

Development of a novel motivational interviewing (MI) informed peer-support intervention to support mothers to breastfeed for longer.

BACKGROUND: Many women in the UK stop breastfeeding before they would like to, and earlier than is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Given the potential health benefits for mother and baby, new ways of supporting women to breastfeed for longer are required. The purpose of this study was to develop and characterise a novel Motivational Interviewing (MI) informed breastfeeding peer-support intervention. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with health professionals and service providers (n = 14), and focus groups with mothers (n = 14), fathers (n = 3), and breastfeeding peer-supporters (n = 15) were carried out to understand experiences of breastfeeding peer-support and identify intervention options. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Consultation took place with a combined professional and lay Stakeholder Group (n = 23). The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) guided intervention development process used the findings of the qualitative research and stakeholder consultation, alongside evidence from existing literature, to identify: the target behaviour to be changed; sources of this behaviour based on the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation (COM-B) model; intervention functions that could alter this behaviour; and; mode of delivery for the intervention. Behaviour change techniques included in the intervention were categorised using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy Version 1 (BCTTv1). RESULTS: Building knowledge, skills, confidence, and providing social support were perceived to be key functions of breastfeeding peer-support interventions that aim to decrease early discontinuation of breastfeeding. These features of breastfeeding peer-support mapped onto the BCW education, training, modelling and environmental restructuring intervention functions. Behaviour change techniques (BCTTv1) included social support, problem solving, and goal setting. The intervention included important inter-personal relational features (e.g. trust, honesty, kindness), and the BCTTv1 needed adaptation to incorporate this. CONCLUSIONS: The MI-informed breastfeeding peer-support intervention developed using this systematic and user-informed approach has a clear theoretical basis and well-described behaviour change techniques. The process described could be useful in developing other complex interventions that incorporate peer-support and/or MI.

Availability of breastfeeding peer support in the United Kingdom: A cross-sectional study.

Peer support is recommended by the World Health Organization for the initiation and continuation of breastfeeding, and this recommendation is included in United Kingdom (U.K.) guidance. There is a lack of information about how, when, and where breastfeeding peer support was provided in the U.K. We aimed to generate an overview of how peer support is delivered in the U.K. and to gain an understanding of challenges for implementation. We surveyed all U.K. infant feeding coordinators (n = 696) who were part of U.K.-based National Infant Feeding Networks, covering 177 National Health Service (NHS) organisations. We received 136 responses (individual response rate 19.5%), covering 102 U.K. NHS organisations (organisational response rate 58%). We also searched NHS organisation websites to obtain data on the presence of breastfeeding peer support. Breastfeeding peer support was available in 56% of areas. However, coverage within areas was variable. The provision of training and ongoing supervision, and peer-supporter roles, varied significantly between services. Around one third of respondents felt that breastfeeding peer-support services were not well integrated with NHS health services. Financial issues were commonly reported to have a negative impact on service provision. One quarter of respondents stated that breastfeeding peer support was not accessed by mothers from poorer social backgrounds. Overall, there was marked variation in the provision of peer-support services for breastfeeding in the U.K. A more robust evidence base is urgently needed to inform guidance on the structure and provision of breastfeeding peer-support services.

A novel peer-support intervention using motivational interviewing for breastfeeding maintenance: a UK feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: In total, 81% of women in the UK start breastfeeding, but fewer than half continue beyond 6 weeks. Peer support in the early postnatal period may encourage women to breastfeed for longer. OBJECTIVE: To develop a breastfeeding peer-support intervention based on motivational interviewing (MI) for breastfeeding maintenance and to test the feasibility of delivering it to mothers in areas with high levels of social deprivation. DESIGN: Intervention development and a non-randomised multisite feasibility study. SETTING: Community maternity services in three areas with high levels of social deprivation and low breastfeeding initiation rates in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women considering breastfeeding. Women who did not plan to breastfeed, who had a clinical reason that precluded breastfeeding continuation or who were unable to consent were excluded. INTERVENTION: The intervention Mam-Kind was informed by a survey of infant feeding co-ordinators, rapid literature review, focus groups with service users and peer supporters and interviews with health-care professionals and a Stakeholder Advisory Group. It consisted of face-to-face contact at 48 hours after birth and proactive one-to-one peer support from the Mam-Kind buddy for 2 weeks, followed by mother-led contact for a further 2-6 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recruitment and retention of Mam-Kind buddies, uptake of Mam-Kind by participants, feasibility of delivering Mam-Kind as specified and of data collection methods, and acceptability of Mam-Kind to mothers, buddies and health-care professionals. RESULTS: Nine buddies were recruited to deliver Mam-Kind to 70 participants (61% of eligible women who expressed an interest in taking part in the study). Participants were aged between 19 and 41 years and 94% of participants were white. Intervention uptake was 75% and did not vary according to age or parity. Most contacts (79%) were initiated by the buddy, demonstrating the intended proactive nature of the intervention and 73% (n = 51) of participants received a contact within 48 hours. Follow-up data were available for 78% of participants at 10 days and 64% at 8 weeks. Data collection methods were judged feasible and acceptable. Data completeness was > 80% for almost all variables. Interviews with participants, buddies and health service professionals showed that the intervention was acceptable. Buddies delivered the intervention content with fidelity (93% of intervention objectives were met), and, in some cases, developed certain MI skills to a competency level. However, they reported difficulties in changing from an information-giving role to a collaborative approach. These findings were used to refine the training and intervention specification to emphasise the focus of the intervention on providing mother-centric support. Health-care professionals were satisfied that the intervention could be integrated with existing services. CONCLUSIONS: The Mam-Kind intervention was acceptable and feasible to deliver within NHS maternity services and should be tested for effectiveness in a multicentre randomised controlled trial. The feasibility study highlighted the need to strengthen strategies for birth notification and retention of participants, and provided some insights on how this could be achieved in a full trial. LIMITATIONS: The response rate to the survey of infant feeding co-ordinators was low (19.5%). In addition, the women who were recruited may not be representative of the study sites. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.