Reexamination of ultra-thin nipple shield use, infant growth and maternal satisfaction
West Virginia University, School of Nursing, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA. Journal of Clinical Nursing
(Impact Factor: 1.26).
10/2009; 18(21):2949-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02912.x
The primary objective of the multi-site, international study was to examine trends in weight gain for term infants breastfed with and without ultra-thin silicone nipple shields to determine the effect of nipple shield use on infant weight gain over two months. Additionally, the study examined maternal satisfaction with nipple shield use using a structured survey.
The nipple shield may facilitate successful breastfeeding outcomes when indicated. There has been question regarding infant weight gain with nipple shield use. A published pilot study using within-subject design indicated no significant difference in infant test weights and maternal prolactin levels when breastfeeding with and without nipple shields. The current study builds and expands upon the pilot study.
Prospective, multi-site, non-randomised, between-subject study.
Maternal-infant dyads (n = 54) who used a nipple shield for breastfeeding were studied.
Results demonstrate no statistically significant difference in infant weight gain at two weeks, one month and two months between infants who breastfed with and infants who breastfed without a nipple shield. A majority (89.8%) of the women reported a positive experience with nipple shield use and 67.3% of the women reported that the nipple shield helped prevent breastfeeding termination.
Infant weight gain was similar in maternal-infant dyads using nipple shields for two months compared to those not using the shields. Maternal positive report of nipple shield use lends to the clinical importance of nipple shield use when appropriately indicated.
Nipple shield use may facilitate breastfeeding when clinically indicated in maternal-infant dyads without risk of decreased infant weight gain.
Figures in this publication
Available from: PubMed Central
- "The exception to this was nipple shields. The preference for nipple shields is consistent with other studies showing that women are satisfied with their use of nipple shields, indeed, found them indispensible in aiding to achieve breastfeeding goals, and would use them again in the future
[31-35]. Nipple shields are unique amongst the repertoire of second-line strategies by facilitating almost direct breastfeeding. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Breastfeeding self-efficacy (BFSE) supports breastfeeding initiation and duration. Challenges to breastfeeding may undermine BFSE, but second-line strategies including nipple shields, syringe, cup, supply line and bottle feeding may support breastfeeding until challenges are resolved. The primary aim of this study was to examine BFSE in a sample of women using second-line strategies for feeding healthy term infants in the first week postpartum.
A retrospective self-report study was conducted using the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale - Short Form (BSES-SF), demographic and infant feeding questionnaires. Breastfeeding women who gave birth to a singleton healthy term infant at one private metropolitan birthing facility in Australia from November 2008 to February 2009 returned anonymous questionnaires by mail.
A total of 128 (73 multiparous, 55 primiparous) women participated in the study. The mean BSES-SF score was 51.18 (Standard deviation, SD: 12.48). The median BSES-SF score was 53. Of women using a second-line strategy, 16 exceeded the median, and 42 were below. Analyses using Kruskal-Wallis tests confirmed this difference was statistically significant (H = 21.569, p = 0.001). The rate of second-line strategy use was 48%. The four most commonly used second-line strategies were: bottles with regular teats (77%); syringe feeding (44%); bottles with wide teats (34%); and nipple shields (27%). Seven key challenges were identified that contributed to the decision to use second-line strategies, including: nipple pain (40%); unsettled infant (40%); insufficient milk supply (37%); fatigue (37%); night nursery care (25%); infant weight loss > 10% (24%); and maternal birth associated pain (20%). Skin-to-skin contact at birth was commonly reported (93%). At seven days postpartum 124 women (97%) were continuing to breastfeed.
The high rate of use of second-line strategies identified in this study and high rate of breastfeeding at day seven despite lower BFSE indicate that such practices should not be overlooked by health professionals. The design of this study does not enable determination of cause-effect relationships to identify factors which contribute to use of second-line strategies. Nevertheless, the significantly lower BSES-SF score of women using a second-line strategy highlights this group of women have particular needs that require attention.
International Breastfeeding Journal 12/2013; 8(1):18. DOI:10.1186/1746-4358-8-18
Available from: Anette Ekström
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of the study was to measure the attitudes of antenatal midwives and postnatal nurses to breastfeeding before and after common, process-oriented breastfeeding training.
Antenatal centres and child-health centres in 10 municipalities were randomized to either an intervention or a control group. The antenatal midwives and postnatal nurses in the intervention group were together given process-oriented breastfeeding training and were, in addition, asked to develop a common breastfeeding policy. A previously developed instrument was used to measure the effects of a training programme on breastfeeding attitudes among midwives and postnatal nurses. It consisted of four scales measuring a person's attitudes toward breastfeeding in four dimensions: regulating, facilitating, disempowering, and breastfeeding-antipathy attitudes. A mean score was calculated for each individual on these four dimensional scales. The higher the score, the stronger the attitude.
After one year, the intervention group reduced their scores on the regulating scale when compared with the control group (p<0.001). The intervention group decreased their scores on the regulating scale and increased their scores on the facilitating scale over the first year after training. The control group also significantly increased their scores on the facilitating scale. When the results were analysed profession-wise, the postnatal nurses in the intervention group decreased their scores on the regulating and disempowering scales and increased their scores on the facilitating scale. In contrast, the midwives in the intervention group decreased their scores only on the breastfeeding antipathy scale. The control group midwives decreased their scores on the disempowering scale. No differences were found among the postnatal nurses in the control group.
Process-oriented breastfeeding training made both antenatal midwives and postnatal nurses better disposed to breastfeeding; postnatal nurses in particular improved their attitudes. Attitudes to breastfeeding tended to be stable over time, but process-oriented training lowered the scores a little on the regulating scale, suggesting that after this kind of training counsellors would find it less necessary to schedule and control the mothers' breastfeeding behaviour.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 12/2005; 33(6):424-31. DOI:10.1080/14034940510005923 · 1.83 Impact Factor
Available from: Anne Chevalier McKechnie
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Nipple shields have become commonplace in the United States for a wide range of breastfeeding problems. This article is a summary of the current literature describing the evidence for nipple shield use. The authors reviewed all available articles on nipple shields and selected 13 studies for inclusion. The studies were organized into three categories: physiologic responses, premature infants, and mothers' experiences. This review concludes that current published research does not provide evidence for safety or effectiveness of contemporary nipple shield use.
Breastfeeding Medicine 12/2010; 5(6):309-14. DOI:10.1089/bfm.2010.0003 · 1.25 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.