Search

This cross-sectional online survey performed in Poland aimed to improve understanding of how COVID-19 pandemic restrictions affected complementary feeding practices among parents of infants aged 4 to 12 months. Self-selected parents were recruited through the internet. The anonymous questionnaire was opened during two intervals during COVID-19 restrictions. The primary outcome was an assessment of sources of information and infant feeding practices in the context of COVID-19 restrictions. Data from 6934 responders (92.2% mothers) were analyzed. Most responders received information from multiple sources, with other parents, family members, or friends being the most frequently reported (48.6%), followed by webinars and experts’ recommendations (40.8%). COVID-19 restrictions largely did not impact the method of feeding, changes in feeding patterns, or complementary feeding introduction, although the latter was more likely to be impacted in families with average versus the best financial situations. Multivariate logistic regression analysis also most consistently showed that parents with a tertiary education and living in a city above 500 k were at higher odds of using webinars/experts’ recommendations, internet/apps, and professional expert guides and lower odds of claiming no need to deepen knowledge. This study clarifies major issues associated with complementary feeding practices during the implementation of COVID-19 restrictions in Poland.

Current guidelines recommend the use of probiotics to reduce the risk of eczema. It remains unclear which strain(s) to use. We systematically evaluated data on the efficacy of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) supplementation prenatally and/or postnatally for the primary prevention of eczema. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched up to August 2018, with no language restrictions, for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and RCTs published afterwards. The primary outcome was eczema. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A random-effects model was used to pool data. Heterogeneity was explored using the I2 statistics. The GRADE criteria were used to assess the overall quality of evidence supporting the primary outcome. Seven publications reporting 5 RCTs (889 participants) were included. High to moderate certainty in the body of evidence suggests that LGG supplementation (regardless of the timing of administration) did not reduce the risk of eczema. There was also no consistent effect on other allergic outcomes. This meta-analysis shows that LGG was ineffective in reducing eczema. It does not support the general recommendation to use probiotics for preventing eczema, unless specific strains would be indicated.