Building a baby‐friendly community: Development, strategy, implementation and evaluation of a <scp>BFCI</scp> program
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIM: The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of the use of baby-friendly community initiative (BFCI) model on various stakeholders in the community. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental research design. METHOD: The study was conducted in public premises and online workshops from April 2019 to September 2022. Participants were followed up for a period of 1 month, except for those employed at public premises. The program involved training based on an accredited BFCI framework to cultivate a breastfeeding-friendly attitude and knowledge. A paired sample t-test was used to examine breastfeeding attitude and knowledge scores before and after BFCI training among staff employed from public premises. An analysis of variance was conducted to examine the breastfeeding self-efficacy and attitude scores, measured repeatedly at different timepoints over 1-month timepoint (T0, T1 and T2) among pregnant and postpartum women. RESULTS: A total of 2340 perinatal women and 1339 staff from public premises were recruited. For staff, there was an increase in the mean score of breastfeeding knowledge and attitude by 5.8 and 6.1, respectively, at T1. Similarly, for perinatal women, there was an increase in the mean score of breastfeeding self-efficacy and attitude by 6.6 and 3.3, respectively, at T1. CONCLUSION: In summary, a BFCI model, with active community participation, accreditation and an award system, has been effective in promoting breastfeeding. Adapting the baby-friendly hospital initiative to local contexts and employing a social theory model can enhance breastfeeding promotion and improve infant health outcomes. Prioritizing culturally sensitive breastfeeding education is crucial for successful BFCI implementation. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Healthcare professionals should consider clients' culture and socio-economic backgrounds when providing breastfeeding education to maximize effectiveness. The target audience for breastfeeding education should be expanded to include various community stakeholders beyond families. IMPACT: What problem did the study address? This study addressed the problem of knowledge gaps among stakeholders in building a breastfeeding-friendly community, particularly in implementing a baby-friendly community initiative (BFCI) as part of a baby-friendly hospital initiative (BFHI). The research filled a service gap by providing effective interventions targeting community stakeholders and assessing the impact of a BFCI program on their knowledge and attitudes towards breastfeeding. What were the main findings? The findings highlighted the effectiveness of a BFCI program in enhancing breastfeeding knowledge and attitudes among frontline staff and increasing breastfeeding confidence among mothers. These findings contribute to the understanding of the program's impact on different stakeholders in the community. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? It impacts on global policymakers by providing insights for developing comprehensive guidelines for future BFCI implementations. It also contributes to the creation of a more baby-friendly community, benefiting breastfeeding families and their infants by promoting and supporting breastfeeding families. REPORTING METHOD: This study has adhered to relevant EQUATOR guidelines using the TREND reporting guideline. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER CONTRIBUTE TO THE WIDER GLOBAL CLINICAL COMMUNITY?: This study provides an overview of the establishment of a localized BFCI program. It also opens up a new direction for the community to investigate BFCI strategies for community stakeholders. It also provides evidence to support other countries in following a similar process, as each country approaches becoming breastfeeding-friendly in its own unique way. TRIAL AND PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: No protocol.
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 | 0,002 | 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 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».