Search

Objective: Evaluate the association between breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding at six months and the introduction of complementary feeding during the pre-pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic periods. Methods: Cohort study conducted with puerperal women and their newborns in the immediate postpartum period at a reference maternity hospital in Southern Brazil between 2018-2020. The COVID-19 pandemic period and the need to work outside the home during restricted circulation were the factors of exposure. The outcome evaluated was the weaning in the first six months (breastfeeding and exclusive breastfeeding) and the introduction of complementary feeding before the sixth month of life. Results: 547 puerperal women and their newborns were included. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a higher risk to weaning of exclusive breastfeeding up until six months (RR 1.16; 95%CI 1.03-1.31) and introducing complementary feeding early (RR 1.40; 95%CI 1.01-1.96). The need to work outside the home during the COVID-19 pandemic increased the risk of not breastfeeding exclusively at the sixth month (RR 1.27; 95%CI 1.08-1.49). Conclusions: The difficulties of the pandemic did reflect negatively on breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices. The pandemic was a risk factor for the early weaning of exclusive breastfeeding and the introduction of complementary feeding. However, not having to work outside the home during the pandemic period was a protective factor for exclusive breastfeeding at six months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate gestational weight gain and birth weight in women with gestational diabetes mellitus of two Brazilian cohorts enrolled three decades apart. Methods: The authors compared data of 2362 women from the Lifestyle INtervention for Diabetes Prevention After Pregnancy study (LINDA-Brasil, 2014-2017) to those of 359 women from the Estudo Brasileiro de Diabetes Gestacional study (EBDG, 1991-1995). Gestational weight gain was classified by the 2009 Institute of Medicine criteria; large and small for gestational age newborns, by the Intergrowth-21st chart. Differences in birth weight means between pregestational BMI and gestational weight gain categories were evaluated by ANOVA; the associations of gestational weight gain and birth weight, through multivariable Poisson regression. Results: In LINDA-Brasil, women presented higher pregestational body mass index (30.3 of small for gestational age higher (7.5 vs. 4.5%) compared to LINDA-Brasil. In LINDA-Brasil, excessive gestational weight gain was associated to macrosomia (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 1.59, 95% CI 1.08-2.35) and large for gestational age (aRR: 1.40; 95% CI 1.05-1.86); less gain increased the risk of low birth weight (aRR: 1.66; 95% CI 1.05-2.62) and small for gestational age (aRR: 1.79; 95% CI 1.03-3.11). These associations were similar in the EBDG, although not statistically significant. ± 6.5 vs. 24.6 ± 4.4 kg/m2) and were frequently obese (46.4 vs. 11.1%) compared to those of the EBDG. In the EBDG, gestational weight gain was larger (11.3 ± 6.1 vs. 9.2 ± 7.6 kg) and rates. Conclusions: Improvements in gestational weight gain and rates of small for gestational age occurred over time in gestational diabetes mellitus pregnancies, accompanied by a worsening in maternal weight profile. This highlights the nutritional transition during this period and the importance of avoiding excessive gestational weight gain as well as promoting adequate weight before conception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]