Cargando…

Comparing breastfeeding experiences between mothers spending the traditional Chinese confinement period in a confinement centre and those staying at home: a cohort study

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Foong, Siew Cheng, Tan, May Loong, Foong, Wai Cheng, Ho, Jacqueline J., Rahim, Fairuz Fadzilah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7789407/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33407645
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13006-020-00353-1
Descripción
Sumario: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.