Assessing the Effectiveness of Policies Relating to Breastfeeding Promotion, Protection, and Support in Southeast Asia: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Despite its well-known benefits, breastfeeding practices remain suboptimal worldwide, including in Southeast Asia. Many countries in the region have thus enacted policies, such as maternity protection and the World Health Assembly International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (the Code), that protect, promote, and support breastfeeding. Yet the impact of such national legislation on breastfeeding practices is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review the content, implementation, and potential impact of policies relating to maternity protection and the Code in Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. METHODS: This mixed methods study includes a desk review, trend and secondary data analyses, and quantitative and qualitative data collection. Desk reviews will examine and compare the contents, implementation strategies, coverage, monitoring, and enforcement of national policies focusing on maternity protection and the Code in each country with global standards. Trend and secondary data analyses will examine the potential impact of these policies on relevant variables such as breast milk substitute (BMS) sales and women's workforce participation. Quantitative data collection and analysis will be conducted to examine relevant stakeholders' and beneficiaries' perceptions about these policies. In each country, we will conduct up to 24 in-depth interviews (IDI) with stakeholders at national and provincial levels and 12 employers or 12 health workers. Per country, we will survey approximately 930 women who are pregnant or have a child aged 0-11 months, of whom approximately 36 will be invited for an IDI; 12 partners of the interviewed mothers or fathers of children from 0-11 months will also be interviewed. RESULTS: This study, funded in June 2018, was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the relevant organizations (FHI 360: April 16, 2019 and May 18, 2020; and Hanoi University of Public Health: December 6, 2019). The dates of data collection are as follows: Vietnam: November and December 2019, May and June 2020; the Philippines: projected August 2020; Myanmar and Thailand: pending based on permissions and funding. Results are expected to be published in January 2021. As of July 2020, we had enrolled 1150 participants. We will present a comparison of key contents of the policies across countries and against international standards and recommendations and a comparison of implementation strategies, coverage, monitoring, and enforcement across countries. We will also present findings from secondary data and trend data analyses to propose the potential impact of a new or amended policy. For the surveys with women, we will present associations between exposure to maternity protection or BMS promotion on infant and young child feeding practices and their determinants. Findings from IDIs will highlight relevant stakeholders' and beneficiaries' perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: This study will increase the understanding of the effectiveness of policy interventions to improve breastfeeding, which will be used to advocate for stronger policy adoption and enforcement in study countries and beyond. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/21286.
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 | 0,018 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».