No abstract

No abstract

Weighing infants in their first 6 months is an important aspect of growth monitoring and a common activity of child health care services worldwide. During the same 6 months, support for establishing breastfeeding and the promotion of continued exclusive breastfeeding are important activities of health professionals. Parents and health professionals may perceive conflicts between achieving both robust growth and continuing breastfeeding. In this narrative review, the literature on weighing breastfed babies in the United Kingdom is examined. A companion paper examined issues of growth charts, scales and weighing frequency and accuracy. This paper considers issues of interpretation of the plotted weight values for individual breastfed babies, noting the complexities of growth patterns, which may lead to difficulties of accurate identification of those individuals whose growth merits further investigation. Little attention has been given to issues of explaining the interpreted growth curves to parents and this issue is explored and noted as of importance for further study. Research evidence on choosing appropriate interventions to improve the growth of breastfed babies is reviewed. The paucity of such evidence leads to suggestions for future study. This review gathers together a wide range of literature from many different perspectives, with the hope of informing weight monitoring practice so that this can both identify infants whose weight may be of concern, and who may need appropriate intervention, and support continued breastfeeding.

Weighing infants during their first 6 months is an important focus of growth monitoring and a common activity of child health care services worldwide. In these same months, health workers provide support for breastfeeding and promote continued exclusive breastfeeding. The literature on the practice of weighing breastfed babies is reviewed, as it applies to the United Kingdom. The shape of the growth curves for breastfed babies differs from that of formula-fed infants and also from centile charts previously in use. The World Health Organization commitment to the production of a new growth reference has generated discussion of the implications of charts in use. The country-specific charts in use in the UK are examined and the data used to construct them discussed with reference to clinical use for breastfed infants. Recent UK discussions on charts, as well as on the frequency of routine weighing for babies in the community are considered, and the available evidence on the accuracy of weighing in practice is noted. The choices made in constructing different charts; the physical condition of scales and their use in practice have implications for plotted growth. This paper aims to present a wide range of evidence available in this area in order to encourage debate on practice. A companion paper will discuss issues of interpretation, conveying information to parents, and interventions.

New pre-school UK charts have been produced incorporating the new World Health Organization growth standards based on healthy breastfed infants. This paper describes the process by which the charts and evidence-based instructions were designed and evaluated, and what it revealed about professional understanding of charts and growth monitoring. A multidisciplinary expert group drew on existing literature, new data analyses and parent focus groups as well as two series of chart-plotting workshops for health staff. The first series explored possible design features and general chart understanding. The second evaluated an advanced prototype with instructions, using plotting and interpretation of three separate scenarios on the old charts, compared with the new charts. The first plotting workshops (46 participants) allowed decisions to be made about the exact chart format, but it also revealed widespread confusion about use of adjustment for gestation and the plotting of birthweight. In the second series (78 participants), high levels of plotting inaccuracy were identified on both chart formats, with 64% of respondents making at least one major mistake. Significant neonatal weight loss was poorly recognized. While most participants recognized abnormal and normal growth patterns, 13-20% did not. Many respondents had never received any formal training in chart use. Growth charts are complex clinical tools that are, at present, poorly understood and inconsistently used. The importance of clear guidelines and formal training has now been recognized and translated into supporting educational materials (free to download at http://www.growthcharts.rcpch.ac.uk).