Dataset Information

Breastfeeding rates in immigrant and non-immigrant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Breastfeeding benefits mothers and infants. Although immigration in many regions has increased in the last three decades, it is unknown whether immigrant women have better breastfeeding outcomes than non-immigrants. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether breastfeeding rates differ between immigrant and non-immigrant women. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Google Scholar, 1950 to 2016. We included peer-reviewed cross-sectional and cohort studies of women aged ?16 years that assessed and compared breastfeeding rates in immigrant and non-immigrant women. Two independent reviewers extracted data using predefined standard procedures. The analysis included 29 studies representing 1,539,659 women from 14 countries. Immigrant women were more likely than non-immigrants to initiate any (exclusive or partial) breastfeeding (pooled adjusted prevalence ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.19; 11 studies). Exclusive breastfeeding initiation was higher but borderline significant (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.20, 95% CI 1.00-1.45; 5 studies, p = 0.056). Immigrant women were more likely than non-immigrants to continue any breastfeeding between 12- and 24-week postpartum (pooled adjusted risk ratio 2.04, 95% CI 1.79-2.32; 3 studies) and > 24 weeks (adjusted risk ratio 1.33, 95% CI 1.02-1.73; 6 studies) but not exclusive breastfeeding. Immigrant women are more likely than non-immigrants to initiate and maintain any breastfeeding, but exclusive breastfeeding remains a challenge for both immigrants and non-immigrants. Social and cultural factors need to be considered to understand the extent to which immigrant status is an independent predictor of positive breastfeeding practices.

SUBMITTER: Dennis CL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7199026 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Breastfeeding rates in immigrant and non-immigrant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dennis Cindy-Lee CL Shiri Rahman R Brown Hilary K HK Santos Hudson P HP Schmied Virginia V Falah-Hassani Kobra K

Maternal & child nutrition 20190426 3

Breastfeeding benefits mothers and infants. Although immigration in many regions has increased in the last three decades, it is unknown whether immigrant women have better breastfeeding outcomes than non-immigrants. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether breastfeeding rates differ between immigrant and non-immigrant women. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Google Scholar, 1950 to 2016. We included peer-reviewed cross-sectio ...[more]

PMID: 30884175

Similar Datasets

Project description: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).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Further research gaps exist in relation to the promotion of breastfeeding. Robust scientific evidence obtained by a meta-analysis would provide objectively summarized data while enabling the assessment of consistency of findings. This review includes the first documented meta-analysis done on the effectiveness of targeting fathers for promoting breastfeeding (BF). Assessments have been done for a primary outcome and for six more secondary outcomes. METHODS:PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL databases and unpublished researches were searched. Selections of randomized-controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were done in three rounds. Heterogeneity and potential publication bias were assessed. Eight studies were included in meta-analysis and others in narrative synthesis of the outcomes. Pooling was done with the Mental- Haenszel method using risk ratio (RR). Summary-of-Findings table was composed by Review-Manager (version 5.3) and GRADEproGDT applications. Subsequent sensitivity analysis was done. RESULTS:Selected eight interventional studies included 1852 families. Exclusive BF at six months was significantly higher (RR = 2.04, CI = 1.58-2.65) in the intervention groups. The RR at 4 months was 1.52 (CI = 1.14 to 2.03). Risk of full-formula-feeding (RR = 0.69, CI = 0.52-0.93) and the occurrence of lactation-related problems were lower in the intervention groups (RR = 0.24, CI = 0.10-0.57). More likelihood of rendering support in BF-related issues was seen in intervention groups (RR = 1.43, CI = 1.22-1.68). Increase of maternal knowledge and favorable attitudes on BF were higher in the intervention groups (P ≤; 0.001). The quality of evidence according to GRADE was "low" (for one outcome), "moderate" (for four outcomes), and "high" (for two outcomes). CONCLUSIONS:Targeting fathers in promotion of BF has provided favorable results for all seven outcomes with satisfactory quality of evidence. This review was registered in the PROSPERO-registry (ID: 2017-CRD42017076163) prior to its commencement.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The impact of deworming on parasite load, nutritional status and other health outcomes of non-pregnant adolescent girls and adult women is uncertain. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Food and Technology Abstracts databases were searched until 24 September 2018. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after studies or interrupted time studies comparing deworming with no intervention or placebo in non-pregnant adolescent girls and women 10 to 49 years old. Outcomes of interest included parasite load, reinfection, anaemia, severe anaemia, iron deficiency, diarrhoea or all-cause morbidity. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS:We included four RCTs of mass deworming involving 1086 participants, in the analyses. Mass deworming probably reduces the prevalence of roundworm infection (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.62; 2 trials; 1498 participants, moderate certainty evidence), prevalence of hookworm infection (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.59; 2 trials; 1498 participants, moderate certainty evidence), prevalence of whipworm infection (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.91; 2 trials; 1498 participants, moderate certainty evidence) compared to the control group. Deworming may make little or no difference in prevalence of anaemia (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11, 3 studies, 683 participants, low certainty evidence) and prevalence of iron-deficiency (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.23, 1 study, 186 participants, low certainty evidence) compared to control. We are uncertain whether deworming reduces the prevalence of severe anaemia compared to control as the certainty of evidence was very low. None of the included studies assessed screen and treat deworming or reported reinfection, diarrhoea or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:Mass deworming probably reduces the prevalence of soil-transmitted helminth infections but may have little or no effect on anaemia and iron-deficiency in adolescent girls and non-pregnant women in comparison to no intervention or placebo. We are uncertain about the effect on severe anaemia. These results are limited by sparse data and the moderate to very low quality of evidence available. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42016039557 ). Primary source of funding: Evidence and Programme Guidance unit, Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization (WHO).

Project description:Background and Objective: Due to its numerous health benefits, breast milk (BM) is recommended for preterm infants. Despite such recommendations, the rates of breastfeeding in preterm infants are lower than that in term infants. Quality improvement (QI) bundles increase breastfeeding in preterm infants, but their replication in neonatal intensive care units has had inconsistent outcomes. Methods: We used the Population or Problem, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) framework to develop our search strategy, and searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception through January 15, 2021. Studies describing any active QI intervention to increase BM use in preterm infants were included. The primary outcome measure was the rate of any breastfeeding or exclusive mother's own milk (MOM) at discharge or during hospitalization. Results: Sixteen studies were eligible for inclusion and showed an acceptable risk of bias, and included 1 interrupted time series, study 3 controlled before-and-after studies, and 12 uncontrolled before-and-after studies; of these, 3 studies were excluded due to insufficient dichotomous data, 13 were included in the meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, the rate of any breastfeeding was significantly improved at discharge and during hospitalization after QI [risk ratio (RR) = 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-1.32, P < 0.00001 and RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.09-3.29, P = 0.02, respectively]. The rate of exclusive MOM after QI was also significantly increased at discharge (RR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.04-2.18, P = 0.03), but not during hospitalization (RR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.78-2.98, P = 0.22). However, after sensitivity analysis, the comprehensive results still suggested that QI could significantly improve the rate of exclusive MOM during hospitalization (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.08-1.35, P = 0.001). Funnel plots and Egger's test indicated publication bias in the rate of any BF at discharge. We corrected publication bias by trim and fill analysis, and corrected RR to 1.272, 95% CI: (1.175, 1.369), which was consistent with the results of the initial model. Conclusions: A QI bundle appears to be effective for promoting BM use in preterm infants at discharge or during hospitalization.

Project description:BackgroundHealth behaviours are important determinants of health and adoption of unhealthy behaviour is considered as one of the mechanisms through which immigrants' health changes over time in the host country. The change in health behaviours over time can contribute either to improving or worsening the overall health status of immigrants. Despite being the important mediators for the change in overall health status and chronic health conditions, no previous review (either general or systematic) has examined differences in key health behaviours simultaneously between immigrants and non-immigrants. This study aims to provide a systematic overview of the current global literature on differences in key health behaviours (that is, tobacco smoking, physical activity and alcohol drinking) between immigrant and non-immigrant groups.Methods/designEmpirical studies in English language reporting quantitative data simultaneously on both immigrant and non-immigrant groups will be considered for this systematic review. Electronic scientific searches will be conducted on seven databases to identify relevant studies of interests: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Global Health, SocINDEX and ProQuest. In addition, Google/Google Scholar will be used to find the relevant studies and personal contact with experts will also be undertaken. Titles, abstracts and keywords of studies identified in the search strategies will be screened for inclusion criteria. The authors will select the studies following the PRISMA guidelines. The quality of included studies will be appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists. A descriptive summary statistics of included studies will describe the study designs, socio-demographic characteristics, and the exposure (immigrant and non-immigrant groups) and outcome (key health behaviours) measures. P-values and confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between exposure and key health behaviours will also be reported.DiscussionThis systematic review will facilitate a better understanding of differences in key health behaviours between immigrant and non-immigrant counterparts. It will provide a rigorous and reliable research base for future research and advance information on key health behaviours for a range of immigrant groups compared to non-immigrants in the high-migrant-receiving countries.Systematic review registrationThis systematic review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42014008688).

Dataset Information

Breastfeeding rates in immigrant and non-immigrant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Breastfeeding rates in immigrant and non-immigrant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure