Women's and peer supporters' experiences of an assets-based peer support intervention for increasing breastfeeding initiation and continuation: A qualitative study.
assets-based approach
breastfeeding
infant feeding
peer support
qualitative interviews
Journal
Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy
ISSN: 1369-7625
Titre abrégé: Health Expect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815926
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
23
09
2019
revised:
12
12
2019
accepted:
07
02
2020
pubmed:
22
3
2020
medline:
19
8
2021
entrez:
22
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Breastfeeding peer support is valued by women, but UK trials have not demonstrated efficacy. The ABA feasibility trial offered proactive peer support underpinned by behaviour change theory and an assets-based approach to women having their first baby, regardless of feeding intention. This paper explores women's and infant feeding helpers' (IFHs) views of the different components of the ABA intervention. Trained IFHs offered 50 women an antenatal meeting to discuss infant feeding and identify community assets in two English sites-one with a paid peer support service and the other volunteer-led. Postnatally, daily contact was offered for the first 2 weeks, followed by less frequent contact until 5 months. Interviews with 21 women and focus groups/interviews with 13 IFHs were analysed using thematic and framework methods. Five themes are reported highlighting that women talked positively about the antenatal meeting, mapping their network of support, receiving proactive contact from their IFH, keeping in touch using text messaging and access to local groups. The face-to-face antenatal visit facilitated regular text-based communication both in pregnancy and in the early weeks after birth. Volunteer IFHs were supportive of and enthusiastic about the intervention, whereas some of the paid IFHs disliked some intervention components and struggled with the distances to travel to participants. This proactive community assets-based approach with a woman-centred focus was acceptable to women and IFHs and is a promising intervention warranting further research as to its effect on infant feeding outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Breastfeeding peer support is valued by women, but UK trials have not demonstrated efficacy. The ABA feasibility trial offered proactive peer support underpinned by behaviour change theory and an assets-based approach to women having their first baby, regardless of feeding intention. This paper explores women's and infant feeding helpers' (IFHs) views of the different components of the ABA intervention.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
Trained IFHs offered 50 women an antenatal meeting to discuss infant feeding and identify community assets in two English sites-one with a paid peer support service and the other volunteer-led. Postnatally, daily contact was offered for the first 2 weeks, followed by less frequent contact until 5 months.
METHODS
Interviews with 21 women and focus groups/interviews with 13 IFHs were analysed using thematic and framework methods.
RESULTS
Five themes are reported highlighting that women talked positively about the antenatal meeting, mapping their network of support, receiving proactive contact from their IFH, keeping in touch using text messaging and access to local groups. The face-to-face antenatal visit facilitated regular text-based communication both in pregnancy and in the early weeks after birth. Volunteer IFHs were supportive of and enthusiastic about the intervention, whereas some of the paid IFHs disliked some intervention components and struggled with the distances to travel to participants.
CONCLUSIONS
This proactive community assets-based approach with a woman-centred focus was acceptable to women and IFHs and is a promising intervention warranting further research as to its effect on infant feeding outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32198797
doi: 10.1111/hex.13042
pmc: PMC7321743
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
622-631Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Mar 06;8:20-28
pubmed: 31193656
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 May 16;13:114
pubmed: 23679158
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
BMJ Open. 2012 Apr 25;2(2):e001039
pubmed: 22535794
Health Expect. 2020 Jun;23(3):622-631
pubmed: 32198797
BMJ Open. 2012 Apr 24;2(2):e000652
pubmed: 22535790
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 28;2:CD001141
pubmed: 28244064
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Oct 21;149(8):565-82
pubmed: 18936504
Br J Health Psychol. 2012 Nov;17(4):854-71
pubmed: 22950369
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 Oct 20;13:192
pubmed: 24139326
Matern Child Nutr. 2020 Jan;16(1):e12907
pubmed: 31793233
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Mar;70(5):769-78
pubmed: 20005617
BMJ. 2012 Jan 25;344:d8287
pubmed: 22277543
Matern Child Nutr. 2019 Apr;15(2):e12703
pubmed: 30246923
Glob Health Promot. 2014 Jun;21(2):3-6
pubmed: 24903715
CMAJ. 2002 Jan 8;166(1):21-8
pubmed: 11800243
Matern Child Nutr. 2012 Jul;8(3):340-53
pubmed: 22118045
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 May 16;(5):CD001141
pubmed: 22592675
Birth. 2006 Jun;33(2):139-46
pubmed: 16732780
Birth. 2010 Jun;37(2):141-9
pubmed: 20557537
BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 23;8(1):e019142
pubmed: 29362263
Matern Child Nutr. 2018 Jan;14(1):
pubmed: 29210171
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Oct 19;16(1):315
pubmed: 27756239
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(14):583-614
pubmed: 27820008
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
Matern Child Nutr. 2014 Jan;10(1):72-91
pubmed: 22712475