Fathers, Coparenting, and Breastfeeding
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Source: Abbass-Dick J, Stern SB, Nelson LE, et al. Coparenting breastfeeding support and exclusive breastfeeding: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2015; 135(1): 102– 110; doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-1416Investigators from Toronto studied the effect of a coparenting breastfeeding support intervention on breastfeeding rates. Mothers were recruited from a teaching hospital within their first 2 days postpartum and were eligible if they were primiparous, ≥18 years old, English-speaking, planning to breastfeed for >12 weeks, living with a male partner who could participate in the study, and had delivered a healthy singleton infant at ≥37 weeks’ gestation. Couples were randomized to receive either usual care or a coparenting breastfeeding support intervention. Usual care consisted of standard in-hospital breastfeeding support and any breastfeeding assistance that was proactively sought in the community. The coparenting intervention included both parents and involved a 15-minute in-hospital discussion, a video, a workbook, a breastfeeding booklet, access to a secure study website, 2 follow-up emails, and 1 telephone call.The primary study outcomes were exclusive breastfeeding and continuation of breastfeeding assessed at 6 and 12 weeks postpartum. Secondary outcomes included maternal satisfaction with their partner’s involvement with breastfeeding, maternal perception of the coparenting relationship as measured by the Coparenting Relationship Scale at 12 weeks, and maternal perception of breastfeeding support from their partner as measured by the Postpartum Partner Support Scale at 6 and 12 weeks. Also, paternal breastfeeding confidence was measured by the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale at birth and 6 weeks and paternal attitude towards breastfeeding was measured by the Iowa Infant Attitude Scale at birth and 6 weeks.There were 107 couples in the control group and 107 in the intervention group. Significantly more mothers in the intervention group than the control group continued to breastfeed at 12 weeks postpartum (96% vs 88%, P = .02). There were no significant differences in breastfeeding rates at 6 weeks nor in exclusive breastfeeding rates at 6 and 12 weeks. There were no significant differences between groups with regard to maternal perception of the coparenting relationship, maternal perception of support, or paternal infant feeding attitude. Fathers in the intervention group had a significantly greater increase in breastfeeding self-efficacy scores from baseline to 6 weeks postpartum compared with fathers in the control group (P = .03). In addition, significantly more mothers in the intervention group than in the control group reported that their partners provided them with breastfeeding help in the first 6 weeks (71% vs 52%, P = .02) and that they were satisfied with their partners’ involvement with breastfeeding (89% vs 78%, P = .04).The authors conclude that including fathers in a coparenting breastfeeding support intervention may have a beneficial effect for first-time parents.Dr Noble has disclosed no financial relationship relevant to this commentary. This commentary does not contain a discussion of an unapproved/investigative use of a commercial product/device.This study confirms the importance of coparenting interventions for new parents. Coparenting aims for more cooperative and supportive teamwork between parents by teaching effective communication, problem solving, and conflict resolution. For instance, in a recently published study, a brief coparenting intervention was shown to positively affect family relationships and decrease maternal stress.1 The present study shows that a coparenting intervention may increase breastfeeding.This study also adds to the growing literature demonstrating that including fathers in breastfeeding interventions increases breastfeeding rates.2 In reality, most breastfeeding interventions are designed exclusively for mothers. Most new fathers report being ignored by or having a negative experience with postpartum nurses.3 A recent study revealed that fathers often felt helpless to support their partner, as they were excluded from antenatal breastfeeding education and postnatal support.4 Fathers wanted more information about breastfeeding to be directed towards them as well as ideas about how they could practically support their partner. Without paternal breastfeeding interventions, fathers may feel that breastfeeding excludes them and continues the exclusive relationship that the mother and infant experienced during pregnancy.A limitation of this current study is that it measured a multifaceted intervention. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain which specific components of the intervention (ie, the discussion, video, workbook, booklet, website, emails, or telephone call) were responsible for the increased breastfeeding duration. We also cannot measure whether the improvement was related to coparenting education, breastfeeding education, or paternal involvement in breastfeeding. Nevertheless, the results of this study suggest that a relatively simple intervention combining support of coparenting and breastfeeding could be effective. If further studies confirm these results, this could be a simple but effective method to improve parenting and breastfeeding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».