Search

A breastfeeding-friendly city is one where there is an enabling environment to support breastfeeding throughout the first 2 years or more of a child's life. Indicators of a breastfeeding-friendly city have yet to be identified. What are the indicators or criteria used to define breastfeeding friendliness in a geographic area such as a city and the settings within, which we have classified as community, healthcare and workplace? Three major databases and grey literature were searched. Records were screened to identify publications describing criteria such as indicators or descriptions of a breastfeeding-friendly setting, defined as 'criteria-sets'. These criteria-sets were then categorized and summarized by settings. The search up to 2 September 2021 found 119 criteria-sets from a range of settings: geographic locations (n = 33), community entities (n = 24), healthcare facilities (n = 28), workplaces (n = 28) and others (n = 6). Overall, 15 community, 22 healthcare and 9 workplace related criteria were extracted from the criteria-sets. Criteria that were consistently present in all settings were policy, training & education, skilled breastfeeding support and physical infrastructure. Some criteria-sets of geographic locations contained criteria only from a single setting (e.g., the presence of breastfeeding-friendly cafes). Criteria-sets were present for all settings as defined in this review, but few were actual indicators. Specifically, there were no existing indicators of a breastfeeding-friendly city. Several common components of the criteria-sets were identified, and these could be used in developing indicators of a breastfeeding-friendly city. Future studies should determine which of these are important and how each can be measured., (© 2023 The Authors. Maternal & Child Nutrition published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

With a focus on traditional practices rather than evidence-based practices, breastfeeding support is sub-optimal in confinement centres (CCs). We used a participatory, needs-based approach to develop a training module for CC staff adopting Kern's six-step approach as our conceptual framework. Of 46 identified CCs, 25 accepted our invitation to a dialogue aimed at establishing relationships and understanding their needs. An interactive training workshop was developed from the dialogue's findings. The workshop, attended by 32 CCs (101 participants), was conducted four times over a four-month period. Questions raised by the participants reflected deficits in understanding breastfeeding concepts and erroneous cultural beliefs. Correct answers rose from 20% pre-test to 51% post-test. Post-workshop feedback showed that participants appreciated the safe environment to ask questions, raise concerns and correct misconceptions. An interview conducted 14 months later showed that while some CCs improved breastfeeding support, others made no change due to conflict between breastfeeding and traditional postnatal practices, which was aggravated by a lack of support due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A participatory approach established a trustful learning environment, helping CCs appreciate the value of learning and adopting new concepts. However, cultural perceptions take time to change, hence continuous training and support are vital for sustained changes.

Introduction: Ethnic Malaysian Chinese used to observe the 1-month postpartum confinement period at home and many families would engage a traditional postpartum carer to help care for the mother and newborn. A recent trend has been the development of confinement centres (CCs) which are private non-healthcare establishments run by staff not trained in health care. Concerns about hygiene in CCs arose after infections were reported. We describe the practice of hand hygiene observed in CCs, the availability of resources for hygiene, and the prevalence of health-related problems in CCs., Methods: This is a cohort study of ethnic Chinese mothers intending to breastfeed their healthy infants. They were recruited post-delivery along with a comparison group who planned to spend their confinement period at home. After their 1-month confinement period, they were contacted for a structured telephone interview about their experience. To avoid any alteration in behaviour, mothers were not told at recruitment that they had to observe hygiene practices. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the effect of place of confinement on rates of infant health problems., Results: Of 187 mothers, 88(47%) went to 27 different CCs while 99(53%) stayed at home. Response rates for the 1-month interviews were 88%(CC) versus 97%(home). Mothers in CC group stayed in one to four-bedded rooms and 92% of them had their baby sleeping separately in a common nursery described to have up to 17 babies at a time; 74% of them spent less than six hours a day with their babies; 43% noticed that CC staff had inadequate hand hygiene practices; 66% reported no hand basins in their rooms; 30% reported no soap at hand basins; 28% reported inexperienced or inadequate staff and 4% reported baby item sharing. Among the mothers staying at home, 35% employed a traditional postpartum carer for her baby; 32% did not room-in with their babies, but only 11% spent less than 6 hours a day with their babies. Of mothers who employed traditional postpartum carers, 32% did not know if their carer washed hands after changing diapers and 18% reported that their carer did not. Health problems that were probably related to infection (HPRI) like fever and cough were similar between the groups: 14%(CC) versus 14%(home) (p = 0.86). Multiple logistic regression did not show that CCs were a factor for HPRI: aOR 1.28 (95% CI 0.36 to 4.49). Three mothers reported events that could indicate transmission of infection in CCs., Conclusion: We found unsatisfactory hygiene practices in CCs as reported by mothers who spent their confinement period there. Although we were not able to establish any direct evidence of infection transmission but based on reports given by the mothers in this study, it is likely to be happening. Therefore, future studies, including intervention studies, are urgently needed to establish an appropriate hygiene standard in CCs as well as the best method to implement this standard. Training CC staff with hygiene knowledge so that they can be empowered to contribute to the development of these standards would be important., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Ethnic Chinese mothers in Malaysia adhere to 30 days of traditional postpartum practices (the "confinement period") aimed at recuperation after delivery. Recently there has been an emergence of confinement centres (CCs) where mothers stay and receive traditional confinement care. Ethnic Chinese mothers have low breastfeeding rates. There are concerns that practices in CCs could contribute to this but no data exists. We described mothers' breastfeeding experiences at CCs and identified areas for potential improvement in breastfeeding support., Methods: Ethnic Chinese mothers intending to breastfeed their healthy infants were recruited post-delivery between August and October 2017 then, at 1 and 6 months, they were telephone interviewed about their experience. For every participant going to a CC after the birth, another mother going home ("home") for her confinement was recruited. Chi-square test was used to compare groups and multiple logistic regression was used to assess the effect of confinement place on exclusive breastfeeding., Results: Of 187 mothers, 88 (47%) went to CCs. Significantly more were primipara and fewer had previous breastfeeding experience. Response rates for the 1- and 6- month interviews were 88% (CC) versus 97% (home); and 77% (CC) versus 87% (home) respectively. Exclusive breastfeeding rates were similar between the groups: 62% (CC) versus 56% (home) at 1 month (p = 0.4); and 37% (CC) versus 42% (home) at 6 months (p = 0.5). Multiple logistic regression did not show that CCs were a factor affecting exclusive breastfeeding rates at 1 month, (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9, 3.3), or 6 months (aOR 0.9, 95% CI 0.4, 1.7). However, significantly more CC participants only fed expressed breast milk. Despite 66% of CC participants reporting that their centre supported breastfeeding, only 6 (8%) CC participants compared to 66 (69%) of home participants roomed-in with their baby (p < 0.001). The proportion encountering breastfeeding difficulties were similar between groups. CC participants sought help for breastfeeding problems mainly from CC staff and support groups while home participants obtained help from friends and healthcare professionals., Conclusions: Breastfeeding rates appeared to be similar at CCs and at home during the confinement period, but there were gaps in how CCs supported breastfeeding. Targeted training to CC staff to support breastfeeding may result in better outcomes for mothers staying in CCs.

Background: Antenatal breastfeeding education (ANBE) is provided to all pregnant women attending Ministry of Health (MOH) clinics and some private health facilities in Malaysia, in line with the WHO/UNICEF Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI). However, the 6 month exclusive breastfeeding prevalence remains relatively low in Malaysia, suggesting that there may be a gap between what is currently taught and what is received by the women., Objectives: To determine how women perceived their ANBE experience in the first 8 weeks postpartum including what was useful and what they would like to have been included, sources of ANBE and infant feeding practices at the time of survey., Methods: Women during their first 8 weeks postpartum who attended MOH clinics in Penang State, Malaysia were surveyed using a self-administered questionnaire in April and May 2015. Categorical responses were presented as numbers and proportions while free text responses were compiled verbatim and categorised into themes. The perceptions of primiparous and multiparous women were compared. Multivariate logistic regression adjusted to known confounders was used to determine if ANBE was associated with exclusive breastfeeding at the time of survey., Results: A total of 421 women completed the 15-item questionnaire (84% response rate) of which 282 were complete and available for analysis. Of these, 95% had received ANBE, majority (88%) from MOH clinics. Almost all women found it useful. However, there were areas both in the delivery (e.g. too short) and the content (e.g. nothing new) that were described as not useful; and areas they would like more coverage (e.g. milk expression, storage and overcoming low milk supply). The exclusive breastfeeding prevalence at the time of survey was 61%. ANBE was significantly associated with exclusive breastfeeding even after adjusting for confounders (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 8.1, 95% confidence interval 1.7, 38.3)., Conclusions: ANBE is widely implemented and perceived as useful and may be associated with exclusive breastfeeding. Our findings give insight into content that women would like more of and how delivery of ANBE could be improved, including individualized sessions and communicating at a suitable level and language. Future studies could focus on the quality of ANBE delivery.

Background: The benefits of six months exclusive breastfeeding are well established for both mother and infant. One of the 10 steps of the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative is rooming-in (mother and baby together in the same room throughout hospitalisation). A Cochrane review found only one randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the effects of continuous rooming-in versus nursery care on breastfeeding duration, and concluded there was insufficient evidence to support or refute either practice. We aimed to examine the effect of continuous or intermittent rooming-in on breastfeeding duration., Methods and Findings: We included all prospective controlled studies (randomised and non-randomised) comparing rooming-in to nursery care that reported full or partial breastfeeding up to six months. We used the 2016 search results of the Cochrane review and updated the search to August 2018 using OVID MEDLINE. Duplicate data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were performed. Meta-analyses were performed using REVMAN 5. The GRADE approach was used to assess quality of evidence. Seven studies were included, five had 24-hour-per-day, one daytime only and one 8-hours-per-day rooming-in. Four studies had at least one additional co-intervention: Differences in delivery room management, and educational packages. All studies contributing to meta-analyses had 24-hour rooming-in. There was no difference in the proportion of infants on full breastfeeding at 3 months (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.54; very-low-quality evidence), 4 months (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.33; very-low-quality evidence) and 6 months (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.58; low-quality evidence). The proportion of infants on partial breastfeeding at 3-4 months was higher with rooming-in (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.61; very-low-quality evidence)., Conclusion: The addition of non-randomised prospective controlled studies to existing evidence did not add further information on the effects of rooming-in on breastfeeding duration but resulted in lower quality of evidence. Uncertainty about the effects of rooming-in on breastfeeding duration remains., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Breast milk is well recognised as the best food source for infants. The impact of antenatal breastfeeding (BF) education on the duration of BF has not been evaluated., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of antenatal breastfeeding (BF) education for increasing BF initiation and duration., Search Methods: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register on 1 March 2016, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to 1 March 2016) and Scopus (January 1985 to 1 March 2016). We contacted experts and searched reference lists of retrieved articles., Selection Criteria: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of formal antenatal BF education or comparing two different methods of formal antenatal BF education, on the duration of BF. We included RCTs that only included antenatal interventions and excluded those that combined antenatal and intrapartum or postpartum BF education components. Cluster-randomised trials were included in this review. Quasi-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion., Data Collection and Analysis: We assessed all potential studies identified as a result of the search strategy. Two review authors extracted data from each included study using the agreed form and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach., Main Results: This review update includes 24 studies (10,056 women). Twenty studies (9789 women) contribute data to analyses. Most studies took place in high-income countries such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia. In the first five comparisons, we display the included trials according to type of intervention without pooling data. For the 'Summary of findings' we pooled data for a summary effect.Five included studies were cluster-randomised trials: all of these adjusted data and reported adjustments as odds ratios (OR). We have analysed the data using the generic inverse variance method and presented results as odds ratios, because we were unable to derive a cluster-adjusted risk ratio from the published cluster-trial. We acknowledge that the use of odds ratio prevents the pooling of these cluster trials in our main analyses. One method of BF education with standard (routine) careThere were no group differences for duration of any BF in days or weeks. There was no evidence that interventions improved the proportion of women with any BF or exclusive BF at three or six months. Single trials of different interventions were unable to show that education improved initiation of BF, apart from one small trial at high risk of attrition bias. Many trial results marginally favoured the intervention but had wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. BF complications such as mastitis and other BF problems were similar in treatment arms in single trials reporting these outcomes. Multiple methods of BF education versus standard careFor all trials included in this comparison we have presented the cluster-adjusted odds ratios as reported in trial publications. One three-arm study found the intervention of BF booklet plus video plus Lactation Consultant versus standard care improved the proportion of women exclusively BF at three months (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.40; women = 159) and marginally at six months (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.76; women = 175). For the same trial, an intervention arm without a lactation consultant but with the BF booklet and video did not have the same effect on proportion of women exclusively BF at three months (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.05; women = 159) or six months (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.70; women = 184). One study compared monthly BF sessions and weekly cell phone message versus standard care and reported improvements in the proportion of women exclusively BF at both three and six months (three months OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.95; women = 390; six months OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.11; women = 390). One study found monthly BF sessions and weekly cell phone messages improved initiation of BF over standard care (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.24; women = 380). BF education session versus standard care, pooled analyses for 'Summary of findings' (SoF)This comparison does not include cluster-randomised trials reporting adjusted odds ratios. We did not downgrade any evidence for trials' lack of blinding; no trial had adequate blinding of staff and participants. The SoF table presents risk ratios for all outcomes analysed. For proportion of women exclusively BF there is no evidence that antenatal BF education improved BF at three months (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25; women = 822; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence) or at six months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30; women = 2161; studies = 4; moderate quality evidence). For proportion of women with any BF there were no group differences in BF at three (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; women = 654; studies = 2; I² = 60%; low-quality evidence) or six months (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23; women = 1636; studies = 4; I² = 61%; high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that antenatal BF education could improve initiation of BF (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; women = 3505; studies = 8; I² = 69%; high-quality evidence). Where we downgraded evidence this was due to small sample size or wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, or both.There was insufficient data for subgroup analysis of mother's occupation or education., Authors' Conclusions: There was no conclusive evidence supporting any antenatal BF education for improving initiation of BF, proportion of women giving any BF or exclusively BF at three or six months or the duration of BF. There is an urgent need to conduct a high-quality, randomised controlled study to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of antenatal BF education, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Evidence in this review is primarily relevant to high-income settings.

Background: Most of the evidence on early feeding of preterm infants was derived from high income settings, it is equally important to evaluate whether it can be successfully implemented into less resourced settings. This study aimed to compare growth and feeding of preterm infants before and after the introduction of a new aggressive feeding policy in Penang Hospital, a tertiary referral hospital in a middle income country., Methods: The new aggressive feeding policy was developed mainly from Cochrane review evidence, using early parenteral and enteral nutrition with standardized breastfeeding counselling aimed at empowering mothers to provide early expressed milk. A total of 80 preterm babies (34 weeks and below) discharged from NICU were included (40 pre- and 40 post-intervention). Pre and post-intervention data were compared. The primary outcome was growth at day 7, 14, 21 and at discharge and secondary outcomes were time to full oral feeding, breastfeeding rates, and adverse events., Results: Complete data were available for all babies to discharge. One baby was discharged prior to day 14 and 10 babies before day 21, so growth data for these babies were unavailable. Baseline data were similar in the two groups. There was no significant weight difference at 7, 14, 21 days and at discharge. More post-intervention babies were breastfed at discharge than pre-intervention babies (21 vs. 8, P=0.005). Nosocomial infection (11 vs. 4, P=0.045), and blood transfusion were significantly lower in the postintervention babies than in the pre-intervention babies (31 vs. 13, P=0.01). The post-intervention babies were more likely to achieve shorter median days (interquartile range) to full oral feeding [11 (6) days vs. 13 (11) days, P=0.058] and with lower number affecting necrotising enterocolitis (0 vs. 5, P=0.055)., Conclusion: Early aggressive parenteral nutrition and early provision of mother's milk did not result in improved growth as evidenced by weight gain at discharge. However we found more breastfeeding babies, lower nosocomial infection and transfusion rates. Our findings suggest that implementing a more aggressive feeding policy supported by high level scientific evidence is able to improve important outcomes.

Background: To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Concerns have been raised that offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast-milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding., Objectives: To assess the effect of restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review, but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.07, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, one study, 970 infants, moderate-quality evidence), and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02, one study, 970 infants). None of the included trials reported data on the other primary outcomes, i.e. duration of partial or exclusive breastfeeding, or secondary outcomes: breastfeeding difficulties (mastitis, cracked nipples, breast engorgement); infant's health (dental malocclusion, otitis media, oral candidiasis; sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)); maternal satisfaction and level of confidence in parenting. One study reported that avoidance of pacifiers had no effect on cry/fuss behavior at ages four, six, or nine weeks and also reported no effect on the risk of weaning before age three months, however the data were incomplete and so could not be included for analysis., Authors' Conclusions: Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. Evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.

Background: Mother-infant proximity and interactions after birth and during the early postpartum period are important for breast-milk production and breastfeeding success. Rooming-in and separate care are both traditional practices. Rooming-in involves keeping the mother and the baby together in the same room after birth for the duration of hospitalisation, whereas separate care is keeping the baby in the hospital nursery and the baby is either brought to the mother for breastfeeding or she walks to the nursery., Objectives: To assess the effect of mother-infant rooming-in versus separation on the duration of breastfeeding (exclusive and total duration of breastfeeding)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of mother-infant rooming-in versus separate care after hospital birth or at home on the duration of breastfeeding, proportion of breastfeeding at six months and adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We included one trial (involving 176 women) in this review. This trial included four groups with a factorial design. The factorial design took into account two factors, i.e. infant location in relation to the mother and the type of infant apparel. We combined three of the groups as the intervention (rooming-in) group and the fourth group acted as the control (separate care) and we analysed the results as a single pair-wise comparison. Primary outcomesThe primary outcome, duration of any breastfeeding, was reported by authors as median values because the distribution was found to be skewed. They reported the overall median duration of any breastfeeding to be four months, with no difference found between groups. Duration of exclusive breastfeeding and the proportion of infants being exclusively breastfed at six months of age was not reported in the trial. There was no difference found between the two groups in the proportion of infants receiving any breastfeeding at six months of age (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.39; one trial; 137 women; low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomesThe mean frequency of breastfeeds per day on day four postpartum for the rooming-in group was 8.3 (standard deviation (SD) 2.2), slightly higher than the separate care group, i.e. seven times per day. However, between-group comparison of this outcome was not appropriate since every infant in the separate care group was breastfed at a fixed schedule of seven times per day (SD = 0) resulting in no estimable comparison. The rate of exclusive breastfeeding on day four postpartum before discharge from hospital was significantly higher in the rooming-in group 86% (99 of 115) compared with separate care group, 45% (17 of 38), (RR 1.92; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.76; one trial, 153 women; low-quality evidence). None of our other pre-specified secondary outcomes were reported., Authors' Conclusions: We found little evidence to support or refute the practice of rooming-in versus mother-infant separation. Further well-designed RCTs to investigate full mother-infant rooming-in versus partial rooming-in or separate care including all important outcomes are needed.

Background: Breastfeeding (BF) is well recognised as the best food for infants. The impact of antenatal BF education on the duration of BF has not been evaluated., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of antenatal BF education for increasing BF initiation and duration., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (2 December 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 November 2011) and Scopus (January 1985 to 30 November 2011). We contacted experts and searched reference lists of retrieved articles., Selection Criteria: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of formal antenatal BF education or comparing two different methods of formal antenatal BF education, on duration of BF. We excluded RCTs that also included intrapartum or postpartum BF education., Data Collection and Analysis: We assessed all potential studies identified as a result of the search strategy. Two review authors extracted data from each included study using the agreed form and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies through discussion., Main Results: We included 19 studies with 8506 women in the review and 16 studies involving 8262 women contributed data to the analyses. We did not carry out any meta-analysis because there was only one study for each comparison.Five studies compared a single method of BF education with routine care. Peer counselling significantly increased BF initiation.Three studies compared one form of BF education versus another. No intervention was significantly more effective than another intervention in increasing initiation or duration of BF.Seven studies compared multiple methods versus a single method of BF education. Combined BF educational interventions were not significantly better than a single intervention in initiating or increasing BF duration. However, in one trial a combined BF education significantly reduced nipple pain and trauma.One study compared different combinations of interventions. There was a marginally significant increase in exclusive BF at six months in women receiving a booklet plus video plus lactation consultation (LC) compared with the booklet plus video only.Two studies compared multiple methods of BF education versus routine care. The combination of BF booklet plus video plus LC was significantly better than routine care for exclusive BF at three months., Authors' Conclusions: Because there were significant methodological limitations and the observed effect sizes were small, it is not appropriate to recommend any specific antenatal BF education.There is an urgent need to conduct RCTs with adequate power to evaluate the effectiveness of antenatal BF education.

Background: Separate care for a new mother and infant may affect the duration of breastfeeding, breastfeeding behaviour and may have an adverse effect on neonatal and maternal outcomes., Objectives: To assess the effect of mother-infant separation versus rooming-in on the duration of breastfeeding (exclusive and total duration of breastfeeding)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2012)., Selection Criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of separate mother-infant care versus rooming-in after hospital birth or at home on the duration of breastfeeding, proportion of breastfeeding at six months and adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy., Main Results: There were 23 reports from 19 potential trials identified. After assessment, one trial (involving 176 women) met our inclusion criteria.One trial reported an overall median duration of any breastfeeding of four months. Exclusive breastfeeding before discharge from hospital (at day four postpartum) was significantly lower in the separate care group compared with the rooming-in group (risk ratio (RR) 0.58; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.81; one trial, 141 women). , Authors' Conclusions: We found little evidence to support or refute the practice of mother-infant separation versus rooming-in. Therefore, we see no reason to practise it. We recommend a well designed RCT to investigate full mother-infant rooming-in versus partial rooming-in or separate care on all of the primary and secondary outcomes suggested.

Background: To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding; however, this remains unclear., Objectives: To assess the effect of unrestricted versus restricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 March 2012)., Selection Criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing unrestricted versus restricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding regardless of whether they were born at home or in the hospital., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data were checked for accuracy., Main Results: We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.05), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06) and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), and at 4 months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.03)., Authors' Conclusions: Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. However, evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.

Background: Breastfeeding (BF) is well recognised as the best food for infants. The impact of antenatal BF education on the duration of BF has not been evaluated., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of antenatal BF education for increasing BF initiation and duration., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (21 April 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2010) and SCOPUS (January 1985 to April 2010). We contacted experts and searched reference lists of retrieved articles. We updated the search of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register on 28 September 2011 and added the results to the awaiting classification section of the review., Selection Criteria: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of formal antenatal BF education or comparing two different methods of formal antenatal BF education, on duration of BF. We excluded RCTs that also included intrapartum or postpartum BF education., Data Collection and Analysis: We assessed all potential studies identified as a result of the search strategy. Two review authors extracted data from each included study using the agreed form and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies through discussion., Main Results: We included 17 studies with 7131 women in the review and 14 studies involving 6932 women contributed data to the analyses. We did not do any meta-analysis because there was only one study for each comparison.Five studies compared a single method of BF education with routine care. Peer counselling significantly increased BF initiation.Three studies compared one form of BF education versus another. No intervention was significantly more effective than another intervention in increasing initiation or duration of BF.Seven studies compared multiple methods versus a single method of BF education. Combined BF educational interventions were not significantly better than a single intervention in initiating or increasing BF duration. However, in one trial a combined BF education significantly reduced nipple pain and trauma.One study compared different combinations of interventions. There was a marginally significant increase in exclusive BF at six months in women receiving a booklet plus video plus lactation consultation (LC) compared with the booklet plus video only.Two studies compared multiple methods of BF education versus routine care. The combination of BF booklet plus video plus LC was significantly better than routine care for exclusive BF at three months., Authors' Conclusions: Because there were significant methodological limitations and the observed effect sizes were small, it is not appropriate to recommend any antenatal BF education.There is an urgent need to conduct RCTs study with adequate power to evaluate the effectiveness of antenatal BF education.

Background: To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding; however, this remains unclear., Objectives: To assess the effect of pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 December 2010)., Selection Criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding regardless of whether they were born at home or in the hospital., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction., Main Results: We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.06), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06) and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02), and at 4 months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.03)., Authors' Conclusions: Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. However, evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.