Correction to: Complementary feeding methods in the first year of life: a study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Nunes, Leandro Meirelles; Führ, Jordana; Belin, Christy Hannah Sanini; Moreira, Paula Ruffoni; Neves, Renata Oliveira; Brito, Mariana Madruga de; Morando, Lorenzo Andreazza; Mariath, Adriela Azevedo Souza; Gomes, Erissandra; Bernardi, Juliana Rombaldi

doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05824-2

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A randomized clinical trial comparing complementary feeding methods in mother-infant pairs: (A) strict PLW, which is the control arm; (B) strict BLISS; and (C) mixed method: a combination of PLW and BLISS created especially for this study. Additional information about the randomized trial can be found in the published study protocols 15 , 16 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimated energy and nutrient intake in complementary feeding methods in Brazilian infants: randomized clinical trial

Moreira,

Silveira,

Neves

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inadequate nutrient intake during complementary feeding (CF) can affect healthy infant growth and development. A randomized clinical trial was conducted to examine the energy and nutrient intake in Brazilian children randomly assigned to three distinct CF methods. Mother-infant pairs participated in the study, with mothers receiving interventions in one of three CF approaches: (A) strict Parent-Led Weaning (PLW); (B) strict Baby-Led Introduction to Solids (BLISS); and (C) a mixed method. Assessments were made at 5.5 months, nine months, and 12 months of the child's age. Food consumption was measured through 24-h dietary recalls at nine and 12 months, with intake estimates calculated using the Brazilian Food Composition Table. Means or medians of energy and nutrients were compared between groups using ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test or the Kruskal–Wallis test. A total of 115 infants were evaluated at nine months, and 102 at 12 months. Children in the PLW, BLISS, and mixed method groups exhibited comparable dietary intakes of energy, macronutrients, and micronutrients at both nine and 12 months. Infants following PLW, BLISS, and mixed methods demonstrated similar levels of energy and nutrient intake, underscoring the effectiveness of these strategies in ensuring comparable nutrient intake during the critical phase of CF.Trial registration The trial was registered in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) with identifier [RBR-229scm U1111-1226-9516], [https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-229scm]. The full data of the first registration was on 24/09/2019.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimated energy and nutrient intake in complementary feeding methods in Brazilian infants: randomized clinical trial

Moreira,

Silveira,

Neves

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is a randomized clinical trial with three intervention arms according to the CF method: PLW (control group), BLISS, and mixed, created especially for this study [ 17 , 18 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adherence to different complementary feeding methods in the first year of life: A randomized clinical trial

Sanini Belin,

Nunes,

Ficagna

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Infant-guided methods, such as Baby-Led Introduction to SolidS (BLISS), encourage children to feed themselves from the same food consumed by their family since the beginning of the introduction of complementary foods, in opposition to the Parent-Led Weaning (PLW) method, which proposes foods mashed with a fork and given by parents. Adherence to child-guided methods is low due to a lack of confidence in the children’s ability to feed themselves. This study aimed to assess adherence to three methods of food introduction: PLW, BLISS, or mixed (PLW and BLISS) at seven, nine, and 12 months of age. Methods A randomized clinical trial was conducted with mother-infant pairs undergoing intervention at 5.5 months of age. Data were presented in absolute numbers and percentages and analyzed using the Chi-Square test. Results The sample was constituted of 139 mother-infant pairs: 45 (32%) used PLW, 48 (35%) used BLISS, and 46 (33%) used the mixed method. Adherence to the method at seven, nine, and 12 months of age children was 34.1% (n = 45), 28.5% (n = 37), and 34.1% (n = 46), respectively. The mixed method presented significantly higher adherence results: 69.0% (n = 29) at seven months, 55.8% (n = 24) at nine months, and 78.6% (n = 33) at 12 months (p<0.001). Among the sample that unfollowed the proposed method, those who used PLW and BLISS migrated mostly to the mixed method at 12 months, 60.0% (n = 27) and 72.9% (n = 35) of them, respectively, because of the feeding mode and 97.8% (n = 44) and 100.0% (n = 48) because of food consistency. Conclusion Complementary feeding in a mixed method presented higher adherence at seven, nine, and 12 months of age of children, which shows the feasibility of this approach to guide families in the introduction of complementary feeding.

show abstract

“…A randomized clinical trial comparing complementary feeding methods in mother-infant pairs: (A) strict PLW, which is the control arm; (B) strict BLISS; and (C) mixed method: a combination of PLW and BLISS created especially for this study. Further information about the randomized trial can be found in the published study protocol 16,17 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimated Nutrients Intake in Complementary Feeding Methods in Brazilian infants: Randomized Clinical Trial

Moreira

Silveira

Neves

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Inadequate nutrient intake is a common problem in the introduction of complementary feeding (CF), which can impair healthy infant growth. Methods To analyze nutrient intake in infants submitted to three different CF methods, it was conducted a randomized clinical trial comparing complementary feeding methods in mother-infant pairs. The mothers received at 5.5 months of the child an intervention on one of three distinct CF methods: (A) strict Parent-Led Weaning (PLW); (B) strict Baby-Led Introduction to SolidS (BLISS); and (C) a mixed method. The pairs were followed up at nine months, and 12–17 months of age. Food consumption was assessed by a 24-h dietary recall at nine and 12–17 months. Quantile regression was used to estimate the differences between the groups in nutrient intake. The research was approved by the Ethics Committee. Results A total of 127 infants were evaluated at nine months and 113 at 12–17 months. Mostly, PLW, BLISS, and mixed CF methods provided similar amounts of macronutrients and micronutrients. At nine months, infants randomized to the Mixed method had higher vitamin B9 intake compared to the other methods (p = 0.049). Infants fed by mixed method consumed significantly fewer carbohydrates (p = 0.033) and less total fiber (p < 0.001) at 12 and 17 months. Conclusions Infants following PLW, BLISS, or mixed showed predominantly similar amounts of nutrient intake. Trial registration: The trial was registered in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) with identifier [RBR-229scm U1111-1226-9516], [https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-229scm]. The full data of the first registration was on 24/09/2019.

show abstract

Correction to: Complementary feeding methods in the first year of life: a study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Estimated energy and nutrient intake in complementary feeding methods in Brazilian infants: randomized clinical trial

Estimated energy and nutrient intake in complementary feeding methods in Brazilian infants: randomized clinical trial

Adherence to different complementary feeding methods in the first year of life: A randomized clinical trial

Estimated Nutrients Intake in Complementary Feeding Methods in Brazilian infants: Randomized Clinical Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About