Antenatal milk expression (AME) involves maternal hand‐expression, collection, and storage of breast milk during pregnancy for the purposes of reducing the early formula use in breastfed infants. AME is not widely practiced in the United States, despite its growing popularity elsewhere. In this study, we examined the experiences of first‐time mothers recruited from a U.S. midwife practice who engaged in AME within the context of a pilot randomized controlled trial. The AME intervention involved demonstration and practice of AME with a lactation consultant beginning at 37 weeks of gestation, reinforcement at weekly study visits until delivery, and daily home practice. Nineteen women participated in a semistructured interview at 1–2 weeks postpartum regarding their study experiences. Major themes included (1) perceived benefits and impact of AME, (b) AME implementation, and (c) use of AME milk. Women perceived multiple benefits of AME, most notably that it increased their confidence that they would be able to make milk and breastfeed successfully postpartum. Women expressed some concern that no/little milk expressed could be indicative of postpartum milk production problems. Regarding implementation, women found that the AME protocol fit well into their daily routine. There was mixed feedback regarding comfort with practicing AME in the presence of partners. Reasons for postpartum use of AME milk varied; barriers to provision included inadequate milk storage options at the birth hospital and unsupportive hospital providers/staff. With few caveats, AME appears to be an acceptable breastfeeding support intervention among a sociodemographically homogeneous group of first‐time mothers in the United States.
Objective To describe the experience of breastfeeding (inclusive of breast milk expression/pumping, provision of breast milk via devices, and at-breast feeding) among mothers of newborns with complex congenital surgical anomalies and the contexts under which pro-breastfeeding behaviors and attitudes are facilitated or compromised. Study Design We used qualitative description to analyze 23 interviews conducted with 15 mothers of newborns undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal, cardiac, or neural tube defects. Results Breastfeeding experiences were characterized by naivety regarding the importance and rationale for exclusive breast milk feedings and best practices to facilitate milk supply maintenance and transition to at-breast feeds. Maternal breastfeeding views and behaviors were impacted by indeterminate prenatal plans to breastfeed/provide breast milk, limited prior breastfeeding exposure and knowledge, and gaps in postnatal lactation support. Conclusion Future research should investigate methods to improve exclusive breast milk feeding and facilitate transitions to at-breast feeds among mothers of newborns with surgical congenital anomalies, with consideration of identified barriers.
The primiparous breastfeeding experience is fraught with internally imposed and externally reinforced pressure to produce and persevere despite inadequate breastfeeding support infrastructure.
Background: Many critical care interventions that require teamwork are adopted slowly and variably despite strong evidence supporting their use. We hypothesize that educational interventions that target the entire interprofessional team (rather than professions in isolation) are one effective way to enhance implementation of complex interventions in the intensive care unit (ICU). Objective: As a first step toward testing this hypothesis, we sought to qualitatively solicit opinions about team dynamics, evidence translation, and interprofessional education as well as current knowledge, attitudes, and practices surrounding the use of one example of a team-based practice in the ICU—preventive postextubation noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Methods: We conducted a qualitative evaluation using semistructured interviews and focus groups with nurses, respiratory therapists, and physicians working in four ICUs in four hospitals within an integrated health system. ICUs were selected based on variation in academic versus community status. We iteratively analyzed transcripts using a thematic content analysis approach. Results: From December 2018 to January 2019, we conducted 32 interviews (34 people) and 3 focus groups (20 people). Participants included 31 nurses, 15 respiratory therapists, and 8 physicians. Participants had favorable views of how their teams work together but discussed ways team dynamics (e.g., leader inclusiveness) impact care coordination. Participants viewed interprofessional education favorably and shared suggestions regarding preferred content and delivery (e.g., include both profession-specific and team-oriented content). Though participants reported frequently using NIV as a treatment, they described rarely using NIV as a preventive strategy, and nurses and respiratory therapists described challenges to use such as perceived patient discomfort. There were ICU-specific differences in management of patients at a high risk for respiratory failure after extubation, with some preferring to delay extubation. Conclusion: Participants reported optimism that interprofessional education can be an acceptable and effective way to improve translation of evidence into practice. Participants also detailed patient-specific and ICU-wide barriers to the implementation of preventive postextubation NIV. This information about teamwork in the ICU, suggestions for interprofessional education, and barriers and facilitators to use of a target evidence-based practice can inform the development of novel educational strategies in ways that increase acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the intervention.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.