Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Brookings supports breastfeeding: using public deliberation as a community-engaged approach to dissemination of research

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Empirical evidence demonstrates myriad benefits of breastfeeding for mother and child, along with benefits to businesses that support breastfeeding. Federal and state legislation requires workplace support for pumping and provides protections for public breastfeeding. Yet, many are unaware of these laws, and thus, support systems remain underdeveloped. We used a community-based approach to spread awareness about the evidence-based benefits of breastfeeding and breastfeeding support. We worked to improve breastfeeding support at the local hospital, among local employers, and throughout the broader community. Our coalition representing the hospital, the chamber of commerce, the university, and local lactation consultants used a public deliberation model for dissemination. We held focus groups, hosted a public conversation, spoke to local organizations, and promoted these efforts through local media. The hospital achieved Baby-Friendly status and opened a Baby Café. Breastfeeding support in the community improved through policies, designated pumping spaces, and signage that supports public breastfeeding at local businesses. Community awareness of the benefits of breastfeeding and breastfeeding support increased; the breastfeeding support coalition remains active. The public deliberation process for dissemination engaged the community with evidence-based promotion of breastfeeding support, increased agency, and produced sustainable results tailored to the community’s unique needs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. León-Cava N, Lutter C, Ross J, Martin L. Quantifying the benefits of breastfeeding: 2012 a summary of the evidence. PAHO Document Reference Number HPM/66/2. 2016. Available at http://www.ennonline.net/quantifyingbenefitsbreastfeeding2. Accessibility verified June 27, 2016.

  2. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention. 2016 Healthy People 2020 Breastfeeding Objectives; 2010 Available at http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/policy/hp2020.htm. Accessibility verified June 27, 2016.

  3. Gartner LM, Morton J, Lawrence R, et al. Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Ped. 2005;115(2):496–506. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-2491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016 Breastfeeding report card: United States 2014. 2015. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/data/reportcard.htm. Accessibility verified June 27, 2016.

  5. World Health Organization. 2016 Exclusive breastfeeding for six months best for babies everywhere. 2011. Available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2011/breastfeeding_20110115/en/. Accessibility verified June 27, 2016.

  6. Kornides M, Kitsantas P. Evaluation of breastfeeding promotion, support, and knowledge of benefits on breastfeeding outcomes. J of Child Health Care. 2013;17:264–73. doi: 10.1177/1367493512461460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sikorski J, Renfrew MJ, Pindoria S, Wade A. Support for breastfeeding mothers: a systematic review. Ped & Peri Epi. 2003;17:407–17. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3016.2003.00512.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schmied V, Beake S, Sheehan A, McCourt C, Dykes F. Women’s perceptions and experiences of breastfeeding support: a metasynthesis. Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care. 2011;38:49–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2010.00446.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carcasson M, Sprain L. Beyond problem solving: reconceptualizing the work of public deliberation as deliberative inquiry. Commun Theory. 2016;26(1):41–63. doi: 10.1111/comt.12055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. US Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division. 2016 Section 7(r) of the Fair Labor Standards Act—break time for nursing mothers protection. Available at http://www.dol.gov/whd/nursingmothers/Sec7rFLSA_btnm.htm. Accessibility verified June 27, 2016.

  11. Chow T, Fulmer IS, Olson BH. Perspectives of managers toward workplace breastfeeding support in the state of Michigan. J Hum Lact. 2011;27(2):138–46. doi: 10.1177/0890334410391908.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Koerber A. Breast or bottle? Contemporary controversies in infant-feeding policy and practice. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson J, Kuehl RA, Drury SAM, et al. Policies aren’t enough: the importance of interpersonal communication about workplace breastfeeding support. J Hum Lact. 2015;31(2):260–6. doi: 10.1177/0890334415570059.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gatrell CJ. Secrets and lies: breastfeeding and professional paid work. Soc Sci & Med. 2007;65(2):393–404. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ivie R. Rhetorical deliberation and democratic politics in the here and now. Rhetoric & Public Affairs. 2002;5(2):277–85. doi: 10.1353/rap.2002.0033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Asen R. Deliberation and trust. Argumentation and Advocacy. 2013;50:2–17.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dillard K. Envisioning the role of facilitation in public deliberation. J of Applied Communication Research. 2013;41:217–35. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2013.826813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Abelson J, Eyles J, McLeod CB, Collins P, McMullan C, Forest PG. Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy. 2003;66(1):95–106. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8510(03)00048-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cho H (Ed). Health communication message design: Theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, McGivern G, Dopson S, Bennett C. Making wicked problems governable? The case of managed networks in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Nabatchi T. An introduction to deliberative civic engagement. In: Nabatchi T, Gastil J, Weiksner GM, Leighninger M, eds. Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012:3–18.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. McCornack S. Reflect & Relate: An Introduction to Interpersonal Communication. 4th ed. Bedford/St. Martin’s: Boston, MA; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Makau JM, Marty DL. Dialogue & Deliberation. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Liao HA. Toward an epistemology of participatory communication: a feminist perspective. Howard J Commun. 2006;17(2):101–18. doi: 10.1080/10646170600656854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jacobsen TL. Participatory communication for social change: the relevance of the theory of communicative action. Communication Yearbook. 2003;27:87–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lave J, Wenger E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 1991.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Boster FJ, Kotowski MR, Andrews KA, Serota K. Identifying influence: development and validation of the connectivity, persuasiveness, and maven scales. J of Communication. 2011;61(1):178–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01531.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Anderson J, Kuehl RA, Drury SAM. 2017 Blending qualitative, quantitative, and rhetorical methods to engage citizens in public deliberation to improve workplace breastfeeding support. In SAGE Research Methods Cases Part 2. doi:10.4135/9781473953796

  30. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kuehl RA, Drury SAM, Anderson J. Civic engagement and public health issues: Community support for breastfeeding through rhetoric and health communication collaborations. Commun Q. 2015;63(5):510–5. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2015.1103598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Johnson BT, Eagly AH. Effects of involvement on persuasion: a meta-analysis. Psyc Bull. 1989;106(2):290–314. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 115K Pugsley Center, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, 57007, USA

    Jenn Anderson Ph.D., Rebecca A. Kuehl Ph.D. & Lois Tschetter Ed.D., RN, IBCLC

  2. Wabash College, Crawfordsville, USA

    Sara A. Mehltretter Drury Ph.D.

  3. Brookings Health System, Brookings, USA

    Mary Schwaegerl R.N & Julia Yoder M.B.A

  4. Brookings Area Chamber of Commerce, Brookings, USA

    Heidi Gullickson B. S & Jamison Lamp B. S

Authors
  1. Jenn Anderson Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca A. Kuehl Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sara A. Mehltretter Drury Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lois Tschetter Ed.D., RN, IBCLC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mary Schwaegerl R.N
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Julia Yoder M.B.A
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Heidi Gullickson B. S
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jamison Lamp B. S
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Charlotte Bachman RN, IBCLC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Marilyn Hildreth RN, IBCLC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jenn Anderson Ph.D..

Ethics declarations

Ethics statement

All research procedures were approved by the institutional review board at the local university and were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Funding

This project was supported by a 2014 Community Innovation grant from the Bush Foundation (no grant number available).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Implications

Practice: Community-based efforts to address complex health issues need to engage community members in meaningful conversations to build understanding and create the relationships needed to generate and sustain positive change.

Policy: Funders and policymakers need to allocate resources and seek partnerships to support ongoing public deliberations that address complex health concerns at a community level, to create unique, sustainable solutions.

Research: Researchers should give greater attention to the communicative processes that drive community-level change for health behaviors, like breastfeeding, which require community support to be successful.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anderson, J., Kuehl, R.A., Mehltretter Drury, S.A. et al. Brookings supports breastfeeding: using public deliberation as a community-engaged approach to dissemination of research. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 7, 783–792 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-017-0480-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-017-0480-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation