BackgroundThe UK has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates worldwide and in recent years the Government has made breastfeeding promotion one of its priorities. The UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative is likely to increase breastfeeding initiation but not duration. Other strategies which involve provision of support for breastfeeding mothers in the early weeks after birth are therefore required to encourage UK mothers to breastfeed for the recommended duration. This paper examines the effects of maternal socio-demographic factors, maternal obstetric factors, and in-hospital infant feeding practices on breastfeeding cessation in a peer support setting.MethodsData on mothers from Blackburn with Darwen (BwD) and Hyndburn in Eastern Lancashire who gave birth at the Royal Blackburn Hospital and initiated breastfeeding while in hospital were linked to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). The data were analysed to describe infant feeding methods up to 6 months and the association between breastfeeding cessation, and maternal factors and in-hospital infant feeding practices.ResultsThe mean breastfeeding duration was 21.6 weeks (95% CI 20.86 to 22.37 weeks) and the median duration was 27 weeks (95% CI 25.6 to 28.30 weeks). White mothers were 69% more likely to stop breastfeeding compared with non-White mothers (HR: 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.67 [White mothers were the reference group]). Breastfeeding cessation was also independently associated with parity and infant feeding practices in hospital. There were no significant associations between breastfeeding cessation and marital status, mode of delivery, timing of breastfeeding initiation and socio-economic deprivation.ConclusionIn this study ethnicity, parity and in-hospital infant feeding practices remained independent predictors of breastfeeding cessation in this peer support setting. However other recognised predictors such as marital status, mode of delivery, timing of breastfeeding initiation and socio-economic deprivation were not found to be associated with breastfeeding cessation.

BackgroundImmunocompromised patients are vulnerable to severe or complicated influenza infection. Vaccination is widely recommended for this group. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients in terms of preventing influenza-like illness and laboratory confirmed influenza, serological response and adverse events.Methodology/Principal FindingsElectronic databases and grey literature were searched and records were screened against eligibility criteria. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed in duplicate. Results were synthesised narratively and meta-analyses were conducted where feasible. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and publication bias was assessed using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's regression test. Many of the 209 eligible studies included an unclear or high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed a significant effect of preventing influenza-like illness (odds ratio [OR] = 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.16–0.34; p<0.001) and laboratory confirmed influenza infection (OR = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.03–0.63; p = 0.01) through vaccinating immunocompromised patie nts compared to placebo or unvaccinated controls. We found no difference in the odds of influenza-like illness compared to vaccinated immunocompetent controls. The pooled odds of seroconversion were lower in vaccinated patients compared to immunocompetent controls for seasonal influenza A(H1N1), A(H3N2) and B. A similar trend was identified for seroprotection. Meta-analyses of seroconversion showed higher odds in vaccinated patients compared to placebo or unvaccinated controls, although this reached significance for influenza B only. Publication bias was not detected and narrative synthesis supported our findings. No consistent evidence of safety concerns was identified.Conclusions/SignificanceInfection prevention and control strategies should recommend vaccinating immunocompromised patients. Potential for bias and confounding and the presence of heterogeneity mean the evidence reviewed is generally weak, although the directions of effects are consistent. Areas for further research are identified.

Vaccination of immunocompromised patients is recommended in many national guidelines to protect against severe or complicated influenza infection. However, due to uncertainties over the evidence base, implementation is frequently patchy and dependent on individual clinical discretion. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess the evidence for influenza vaccination in this patient group. Healthcare databases and grey literature were searched and screened for eligibility. Data extraction and assessments of risk of bias were undertaken in duplicate, and results were synthesised narratively and using meta‐analysis where possible. Our data show that whilst the serological response following vaccination of immunocompromised patients is less vigorous than in healthy controls, clinical protection is still meaningful, with only mild variation in adverse events between aetiological groups. Although we encountered significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity in many of our meta‐analyses, we advocate that immunocompromised patients should be targeted for influenza vaccination.

No abstract