Women's and peer supporters' experiences of an assets‐based peer support intervention for increasing breastfeeding initiation and continuation

A qualitative study

Bibliographic Data

ID19506937
AuthorsJenny Ingram (0000-0003-2366-008X, Centre for Academic Child Health University of Bristol Bristol UK, corresponding author), Gill Thomson (0000-0003-3392-8182, Maternal and Infant Nutrition and Nurture Unit (MAINN) University of Central Lancashire Preston UK), Debbie Johnson (0000-0001-7390-6514, Centre for Academic Child Health University of Bristol Bristol UK), Joanne Clarke (0000-0002-7954-6561, University of Birmingham), Joanne L Clarke (Institute of Applied Health Research University of Birmingham Birmingham UK), Heather Trickey (0000-0002-3707-456X, DECIPHER Department of Social Medicine Cardiff University Cardiff UK), Pat Hoddinott (0000-0002-4372-9681, Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit University of Stirling Stirling UK), Stephan U Dombrowski (0000-0001-9832-2777, Faculty of Kinesiology University of New Brunswick Fredericton NB Canada), Kate Jolly (0000-0002-6224-2115, Institute of Applied Health Research University of Birmingham Birmingham UK), the ABA Study Team
Year2020
Volume23
Issue3
Pages622-631
Publication date2020-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth Expectations (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/hex.13042
PMID32198797
OpenAlexW3008215438
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited24

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: Breastfeeding peer support is valued by women, but UK trials have not demonstrated efficacy. The ABA feasibility trial offered proactive peer support underpinned by behaviour change theory and an assets-based approach to women having their first baby, regardless of feeding intention. This paper explores women's and infant feeding helpers' (IFHs) views of the different components of the ABA intervention. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Trained IFHs offered 50 women an antenatal meeting to discuss infant feeding and identify community assets in two English sites-one with a paid peer support service and the other volunteer-led. Postnatally, daily contact was offered for the first 2 weeks, followed by less frequent contact until 5 months. METHODS: Interviews with 21 women and focus groups/interviews with 13 IFHs were analysed using thematic and framework methods. RESULTS: Five themes are reported highlighting that women talked positively about the antenatal meeting, mapping their network of support, receiving proactive contact from their IFH, keeping in touch using text messaging and access to local groups. The face-to-face antenatal visit facilitated regular text-based communication both in pregnancy and in the early weeks after birth. Volunteer IFHs were supportive of and enthusiastic about the intervention, whereas some of the paid IFHs disliked some intervention components and struggled with the distances to travel to participants. CONCLUSIONS: This proactive community assets-based approach with a woman-centred focus was acceptable to women and IFHs and is a promising intervention warranting further research as to its effect on infant feeding outcomes

Breastfeeding · Focus group · Peer group · Peer support · Qualitative research · Social support · Sociology · Thematic analysis · Breastfeeding Practices and Influences · Infant Development and Preterm Care · Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum · Medicine · Nursing · Psychology · Social Psychology · Pediatrics

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access