Dataset Information

Trends in breastfeeding practices and mothers' experience in the French NutriNet-Sante cohort.

ABSTRACT:

Background

France has one of the lowest rates in the world regarding breastfeeding initiation and duration. Few studies have explored breastfeeding practices in France since the middle of the twentieth century, or following from initiation to cessation. The purpose of our study was to determine trends in breastfeeding over the past decades regarding public health recommendations, and to examine mothers' perceptions about factors known to have an impact on breastfeeding support and cessation.

Methods

From the NutriNet-Santé cohort, 29,953 parous women (launched in 2009 to study relation between nutrition and health), were included in the present study. Using web-questionnaires, they were asked retrospectively if they had breastfed their youngest child or not, and if so, the duration of exclusive and total breastfeeding. For those who had breastfed, we investigated their perceptions about support at initiation and during the entire breastfeeding period and reasons for breastfeeding cessation. We also asked those who did not breastfeed about their perceptions and reasons for infant formula feeding their youngest child. Analyses were weighted according to the French census data.

Results

In the NutriNet-Santé cohort, 67.3% of mothers breastfed their youngest child. The proportion of breastfed children increased over the past few decades, from 55.0% (95% CI 54.3, 55.6) in the 1970s to 82.9% (82.4, 83.4) in the 2010s. Total and exclusive breastfeeding duration went from 3.3 months and 2.4 months respectively in the 1970s to 5.9 months and 3.2 months respectively in the 2010s. Most mothers felt supported at initiation and during the breastfeeding period. A reported desire to have breastfed longer than two months was 59.5%. Mothers who did not breastfeed did it by choice (64.3%). They did not feel guilty (78.2%) and did not perceive a problem not to breastfeed (58.8%), but almost half of them would have liked to have breastfed (45.9%).

Conclusion

Breastfeeding duration has increased in the past decades but did not reach the public health recommendations threshold. Targets other than mothers have to be considered for breastfeeding education, like the partner and her environment, to increase breastfeeding practices.

Trial registration

The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03335644 ).

SUBMITTER: Courtois F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8254215 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEmulsifiers are widely used food additives in industrially processed foods to improve texture and enhance shelf-life. Experimental research suggests deleterious effects of emulsifiers on the intestinal microbiota and the metabolome, leading to chronic inflammation and increasing susceptibility to carcinogenesis. However, human epidemiological evidence investigating their association with cancer is nonexistent. This study aimed to assess associations between food additive emulsifiers and cancer risk in a large population-based prospective cohort.Methods and findingsThis study included 92,000 adults of the French NutriNet-Santé cohort without prevalent cancer at enrolment (44.5 y [SD: 14.5], 78.8% female, 2009 to 2021). They were followed for an average of 6.7 years [SD: 2.2]. Food additive emulsifier intakes were estimated for participants who provided at least 3 repeated 24-h dietary records linked to comprehensive, brand-specific food composition databases on food additives. Multivariable Cox regressions were conducted to estimate associations between emulsifiers and cancer incidence. Overall, 2,604 incident cancer cases were diagnosed during follow-up (including 750 breast, 322 prostate, and 207 colorectal cancers). Higher intakes of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (FAs) (E471) were associated with higher risks of overall cancer (HR high vs. low category = 1.15; 95% CI [1.04, 1.27], p-trend = 0.01), breast cancer (HR = 1.24; 95% CI [1.03, 1.51], p-trend = 0.04), and prostate cancer (HR = 1.46; 95% CI [1.09, 1.97], p-trend = 0.02). In addition, associations with breast cancer risk were observed for higher intakes of total carrageenans (E407 and E407a) (HR = 1.32; 95% CI [1.09, 1.60], p-trend = 0.009) and carrageenan (E407) (HR = 1.28; 95% CI [1.06, 1.56], p-trend = 0.01). No association was detected between any of the emulsifiers and colorectal cancer risk. Several associations with other emulsifiers were observed but were not robust throughout sensitivity analyses. Main limitations include possible exposure measurement errors in emulsifiers intake and potential residual confounding linked to the observational design.ConclusionsIn this large prospective cohort, we observed associations between higher intakes of carrageenans and mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids with overall, breast and prostate cancer risk. These results need replication in other populations. They provide new epidemiological evidence on the role of emulsifiers in cancer risk.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03335644.

Project description:Food additives (e.g. artificial sweeteners, emulsifiers, dyes, etc.) are ingested by billions of individuals daily. Some concerning results, mainly derived from animal and/or cell-based experimental studies, have recently emerged suggesting potential detrimental effects of several widely consumed additives. Profiles of additive exposure as well as the potential long-term impact of multiple exposure on human health are poorly documented. This work aimed to estimate the usual intake of food additives among participants of the French NutriNet-Santé cohort and to identify and describe profiles of exposure (single substances and mixtures). Overall, 106,489 adults from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort study (2009-ongoing) were included. Consumption of 90 main food additives was evaluated using repeated 24 h dietary records including information on brands of commercial products. Qualitative information (as presence/absence) of each additive in food products was determined using 3 large-scale composition databases (OQALI, Open Food Facts, GNPD), accounting for the date of consumption of the product. Quantitative ingested doses were estimated using a combination of laboratory assays on food matrixes (n = 2677) and data from EFSA and JECFA. Exposure was estimated in mg per kg of body weight per day. Profiles of exposure to food additive mixtures were extracted using Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF) followed by k-means clustering as well as Graphical Lasso. Sociodemographic and dietary comparison of clusters of participants was performed by Chi-square tests or linear regressions. Data were weighted according to the national census. Forty-eight additives were consumed by more than 10% of the participants, with modified starches and citric acid consumed by more than 90%. The top 50 also included several food additives for which potential adverse health effects have been suggested by recent experimental studies: lecithins (86.6% consumers), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (78.1%), carrageenan (77.5%), sodium nitrite (73.9%), di-, tri- and polyphosphates (70.1%), potassium sorbate (65.8%), potassium metabisulphite (44.8%), acesulfame K (34.0%), cochineal (33.9%), potassium nitrate (31.6%), sulfite ammonia caramel (28.8%), bixin (19.5%), monosodium glutamate (15.1%) and sucralose (13.5%). We identified and described five clusters of participants more specifically exposed to five distinct additive mixtures and one additional cluster gathering participants with overall low additive exposure. Food additives, including several for which health concerns are currently debated, were widely consumed in this population-based study. Furthermore, main mixtures of additives were identified. Their health impact and potential cocktail effects should be explored in future epidemiological and experimental studies.

Project description:BackgroundTo date, no consensus has emerged on the most appropriate front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition label to help consumers in making informed choices. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of the label formats currently in use: nutrient-specific, graded and simple summary systems, in a large sample of adults.MethodsThe FOP label effectiveness was assessed by measuring the label acceptability and understanding among 13,578 participants of the NutriNet-Santé cohort study, representative of the French adult population. Participants were exposed to five conditions, including four FOP labels: Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA), Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL), 5-Color Nutrition Label (5-CNL), Green Tick (Tick), and a "no label" condition. Acceptability was evaluated by several indicators: attractiveness, liking and perceived cognitive workload. Objective understanding was assessed by the percentage of correct answers when ranking three products according to their nutritional quality. Five different product categories were tested: prepared fish dishes, pizzas, dairy products, breakfast cereals, and appetizers. Differences among the label effectiveness were compared with chi-square tests.ResultsThe 5-CNL was viewed as the easiest label to identify and as the one requiring the lowest amount of effort and time to understand. GDA was considered as the least easy to identify and to understand, despite being the most attractive and liked label. All FOP labels were found to be effective in ranking products according to their nutritional quality compared with the "no label" situation, although they showed differing levels of effectiveness (p<0.0001). Globally, the 5-CNL performed best, followed by MTL, GDA and Tick labels.ConclusionsThe graded 5-CNL label was considered as easy to identify, simple and rapid to understand; it performed well when comparing the products' nutritional quality. Therefore, it is likely to present advantages in real shopping situations where choices are usually made quickly.

Project description:Epidemiological and experimental evidence support a protective effect of dietary polyphenols on chronic diseases, but high quality longitudinal data are needed, including details on categories of polyphenols. Our objective was to investigate the prospective association between total and individual classes and subclasses of dietary polyphenols and the risk of major cardiovascular disease in the NutriNet-Santé cohort. A total of 84,158 participants, who completed at least three 24 h dietary records, were included between May 2009 and June 2017. Individual polyphenols intakes were obtained by matching food consumption data from the 24 h dietary records with the Phenol-Explorer polyphenol composition database. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to characterize the associations between dietary polyphenols and the incidence of cardiovascular diseases, comparing tertile T3 vs. T1 of classes and subclasses of polyphenols. Over a median of 4.9 years of follow-up, 602 major cardiovascular events were diagnosed. Intakes of anthocyanins, catechins, and flavonols were strongly inversely associated with cardiovascular disease risk (anthocyanins: Hazard Ratio (HR)for a 1-point increment of 10 mg/day = 0.98 (0.96⁻0.99, p = 0.03, HRT3vs.T1 = 0.66 (0.52⁻0.83), ptrend = 0.0003; catechins: HRfor a 1-point increment of 10 mg/day = 0.98 (0.96⁻0.99), p = 0.02, HRT3vs.T1 = 0.74 (0.60⁻0.91), ptrend = 0.004; flavonols: HRfor a 1-point increment of 10 mg/day = 0.94 (0.90⁻0.99), p = 0.02, HRT3vs.T1 = 0.75 (0.61⁻0.94), ptrend = 0.006). Intakes of dihydrochalcones, proanthocyaninidins, dihydroflavonols, hydroxybenzoic acids, and stilbenes were also associated with a decrease (13%, 19%, 24%, 24%, and 27%, respectively) in cardiovascular disease risk, when comparing tertile T3 to T1. Higher intakes of polyphenols, especially of anthocyanins, catechins, and flavonols, were associated with a statistically significant decreased cardiovascular disease risk.

Project description:BackgroundSince December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been spreading steadily, resulting in overwhelmed health-care systems and numerous deaths worldwide. To counter these outcomes, many countries, including France, put in place strict lockdown measures, requiring the temporary closure of all but essential places and causing an unprecedented disruption of daily life.ObjectivesOur objective was to explore potential changes in dietary intake, physical activity, body weight, and food supply during the COVID-19 lockdown and how these differed according to individual characteristics.MethodsThe analyses included 37,252 adults from the French web-based NutriNet-Santé cohort who completed lockdown-specific questionnaires in April-May 2020. Nutrition-related changes and their sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health-status correlates were investigated using multivariable logistic regression models. Clusters of participants were defined using an ascending hierarchical classification of change profiles derived from multiple correspondence analyses.ResultsDuring the lockdown, trends of unfavorable changes were observed: decreased physical activity (reported by 53% of the participants), increased sedentary time (reported by 63%), increased snacking, decreased consumption of fresh food (especially fruit and fish), and increased consumption of sweets, cookies, and cakes. Yet, the opposite trends were also observed: increased home cooking (reported by 40%) and increased physical activity (reported by 19%). Additionally, 35% of the participants gained weight (mean weight gain in these individuals, 1.8 kg ± SD 1.3 kg) and 23% lost weight (2 kg ± SD 1.4 kg weight loss). All of these trends displayed associations with various individual characteristics.ConclusionsThese results suggest that nutrition-related changes occurred during the lockdown in both unfavorable and favorable directions. The observed unfavorable changes should be considered in the event of a future lockdown, and should also be monitored to prevent an increase in the nutrition-related burden of disease, should these diet/physical activity changes be maintained in the long run. Understanding the favorable changes may help extend them on a broader scale. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03335644.