Participation in the "nutrition at the Centre" project through women's group improved exclusive breastfeeding practices, as measured by the deuterium oxide dose-to-mother technique.
Benin
Deuterium oxide
Educational intervention
Exclusive breastfeeding
N@C project
VSLA groups
Journal
International breastfeeding journal
ISSN: 1746-4358
Titre abrégé: Int Breastfeed J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101251562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 06 2020
26 06 2020
Historique:
received:
03
12
2019
accepted:
18
06
2020
entrez:
28
6
2020
pubmed:
28
6
2020
medline:
18
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Evidence of interventions that are effective in improving exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) practices is needed to help countries revise their strategies. To assess whether mothers who had participated in the Nutrition at the Centre (N@C) project effectively demonstrated better EBF practices than did those who did not participate, we documented the processes of this nutritional intervention in Benin. This study was a cross-sectional design comparing the intervention group, namely, the Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA-N@C), to the control group. The N@C project was an educational intervention based on behavioural and social changes related to nutrition. Through VSLA groups installed in communities, mothers were connected to the project; had weekly discussions around the process, benefits and challenges linked to EBF, and advocated during Breastfeeding Week celebrations. The study participants were mothers with children aged 4-5.5 months from the VSLA-N@C group (n = 53) and mothers (n = 50) from non-intervention areas who served as controls. With the deuterium oxide dose-to-mother technique, we quantified human milk intake (HMI) and non-milk oral intake (NMOI) and compared both groups using Student's t-test. A child is considered to be exclusively breastfed if the NMOI is less than 86.6 g/day. Multivariate regression logistics adjusted for VSLA membership, mothers' body mass index, and children's age, weight-for-age and weight-for-length, thus enabling us to measure differences in EBF rates. Children of mothers from the VSLA-N@C group consumed significantly more human milk than those of mothers in the control group (900.2 ± 152.5 g/day vs 842.2 ± 188.6 g/day, P = 0.044). Children in the VSLA-N@C group had significantly less non-milk oral intake than did those in the control group (difference: 148.2 g/day, P = 0.000). Therefore, the EBF rate was significantly higher in the VSLA group (38% vs 8%, P < 0.0001), and mothers in VSLAs were 14 times more likely to practise EBF than were those in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 13.9, 95% CI 1.9-116.5, P = 0.015). The EBF rate was significantly higher in the group of mothers who participated in the VSLA-N@C project than in those who did not receive the intervention. The N@C model could be promoted as a strategy for increasing EBF practices in poor and rural contexts, where it is possible to organize mothers into VSLA groups to discuss the process, benefits and challenges of EBF.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Evidence of interventions that are effective in improving exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) practices is needed to help countries revise their strategies. To assess whether mothers who had participated in the Nutrition at the Centre (N@C) project effectively demonstrated better EBF practices than did those who did not participate, we documented the processes of this nutritional intervention in Benin.
METHODS
This study was a cross-sectional design comparing the intervention group, namely, the Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA-N@C), to the control group. The N@C project was an educational intervention based on behavioural and social changes related to nutrition. Through VSLA groups installed in communities, mothers were connected to the project; had weekly discussions around the process, benefits and challenges linked to EBF, and advocated during Breastfeeding Week celebrations. The study participants were mothers with children aged 4-5.5 months from the VSLA-N@C group (n = 53) and mothers (n = 50) from non-intervention areas who served as controls. With the deuterium oxide dose-to-mother technique, we quantified human milk intake (HMI) and non-milk oral intake (NMOI) and compared both groups using Student's t-test. A child is considered to be exclusively breastfed if the NMOI is less than 86.6 g/day. Multivariate regression logistics adjusted for VSLA membership, mothers' body mass index, and children's age, weight-for-age and weight-for-length, thus enabling us to measure differences in EBF rates.
RESULTS
Children of mothers from the VSLA-N@C group consumed significantly more human milk than those of mothers in the control group (900.2 ± 152.5 g/day vs 842.2 ± 188.6 g/day, P = 0.044). Children in the VSLA-N@C group had significantly less non-milk oral intake than did those in the control group (difference: 148.2 g/day, P = 0.000). Therefore, the EBF rate was significantly higher in the VSLA group (38% vs 8%, P < 0.0001), and mothers in VSLAs were 14 times more likely to practise EBF than were those in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 13.9, 95% CI 1.9-116.5, P = 0.015).
CONCLUSION
The EBF rate was significantly higher in the group of mothers who participated in the VSLA-N@C project than in those who did not receive the intervention. The N@C model could be promoted as a strategy for increasing EBF practices in poor and rural contexts, where it is possible to organize mothers into VSLA groups to discuss the process, benefits and challenges of EBF.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32590987
doi: 10.1186/s13006-020-00302-y
pii: 10.1186/s13006-020-00302-y
pmc: PMC7318378
doi:
Substances chimiques
Deuterium Oxide
J65BV539M3
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
58Références
Matern Child Nutr. 2012 Jul;8(3):330-9
pubmed: 21426489
J Hum Lact. 2016 Feb;32(1):152-9
pubmed: 26289058
Int Breastfeed J. 2018 May 25;13:19
pubmed: 29849742
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Apr;85(4):1075-82
pubmed: 17413108
Food Nutr Bull. 2002 Sep;23(3 Suppl):169-73
pubmed: 12362788
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2019 Feb;46(1):1-13
pubmed: 30430351
J Nutr. 2015 Jun;145(6):1325-9
pubmed: 25904731
Matern Child Nutr. 2017 Apr;13(2):
pubmed: 27319398
Lancet. 2016 Jan 30;387(10017):475-90
pubmed: 26869575
Proc Nutr Soc. 2017 Nov;76(4):495-503
pubmed: 28347373
BMC Public Health. 2015 Mar 18;15:259
pubmed: 25849731
Am J Epidemiol. 1994 Jan 15;139(2):193-205
pubmed: 8296786
BMC Public Health. 2014 Jan 15;14:36
pubmed: 24428951
J Nutr. 2010 Dec;140(12):2227-32
pubmed: 20980653
J Nutr. 2008 Aug;138(8):1499-504
pubmed: 18641197