Breastfeeding Practices: Does Method of Delivery Matter?
- 1.1k Downloads
Objective of this study was to assess the relationship between method of delivery and breastfeeding. Using data (2005–2006) from the longitudinal Infant Feeding Practices Study II (n = 3,026) we assessed the relationship between delivery method (spontaneous vaginal, induced vaginal, emergency cesarean, and planned cesarean) and breastfeeding: initiation, any breastfeeding at 4 weeks, any breastfeeding at 6 months, and overall duration. We used SAS software to analyze data using multivariable analyses adjusting for several confounders, including selected demographic characteristics, participants’ pre-delivery breastfeeding intentions and attitude, and used event-history analysis to estimate breastfeeding duration by delivery method. We found no significant association between delivery method and breastfeeding initiation. In the fully adjusted models examining breastfeeding duration to 4 weeks with spontaneous vaginal delivery group as the reference, those with induced vaginal deliveries were significantly less likely to breastfeed [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.53; 95 % CI = 0.38–0.71]; and no significant relationship was observed for those who had planned or emergency cesarean deliveries. Again, compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery group, those with induced vaginal [AOR = 0.60; 96 % CI = 0.47–0.78] and emergency cesarean [AOR = 0.68; 96 % CI = 0.48–0.95] deliveries were significantly less likely to breastfeed at 6 months. Median breastfeeding duration was 45.2 weeks among women with spontaneous vaginal, 38.7 weeks among planned cesarean, 25.8 weeks among induced vaginal and 21.5 weeks among emergency cesarean deliveries. While no significant association was observed between delivery method and breastfeeding initiation; breastfeeding duration varied substantially with method of delivery, perhaps indicating a need for additional support for women with assisted deliveries.
KeywordsBreastfeeding Initiation Duration Delivery method
- 2.Ip, S., Chung, M., Raman, G., Chew, P., Magula, N., DeVine, D. et al. (2007). Breastfeeding and maternal and infant health outcomes in developed countries. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 153. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.Google Scholar
- 8.Bartick, M., Reinhold, A. (2010). The burden of suboptimal breastfeeding in the United States: A pediatric cost analysis. Pediatrics. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-1616.
- 15.Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. (2002). Breast cancer and breastfeeding: Collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries, including 50,302 women with breast cancer and 96,973 women without the disease. Lancet, 360(9328), 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Breastfeeding Report Card—United States, 2010. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/data/reportcard2.htm]. Accessed Mar 18, 2011.
- 18.US Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). The surgeon general’s call to action to support breastfeeding. Washington, DC; US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General; 2011. Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/breastfeeding/calltoactiontosupportbreastfeeding.pdf.
- 24.Menacker, F., Hamilton, B. E. (2010). Recent trends in cesarean delivery in the United States. NCHS data brief, no 35. Hyattsville, MD; National Center for Health Statistics, 2010.Google Scholar
- 25.Dewey, K. G. (2001). Maternal and fetal stress are associated with impaired lactogenesis in humans. Journal of Nutrition, 131, 3012–3015.Google Scholar
- 28.Fein, S. B., Labiner-Wolfe, J., Shealy, K. R., Li, R., Chen, J., Grummer-Strawn, L. M. (2008). Infant Feeding Practices Study II: Study methods. Pediatrics, 122, S28–S35. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-1315c; Available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/122/Supplement_2/S28.