Effectiveness of the Breastfeeding Self-efficacy and Family Support Enhancement Program among First-time Postpartum Mothers: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

First-time mothers often lack effective breastfeeding techniques and may perceive they have insufficient milk due to inadequate experience in breastfeeding. There are limited programs for enhancing effective breastfeeding and perceived sufficient milk among first-time mothers in Thailand. This randomized controlled trial study investigated the effects of the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy and Family Support Enhancement Program on effective breastfeeding and perceived sufficient milk among first-time mothers. The participants included 64 pairs of first-time mothers with normal labor and their family members. They were recruited from an antenatal clinic in a province of Thailand and randomly assigned to the experimental arm (n = 32) to receive the program in addition to standard care or the control arm (n = 32) to receive only standard care. Data were collected using the Demographic and Obstetric Data Questionnaires, the Bristol Breastfeeding Assessment Tool, H&H Lactation Scale for first-time mothers, and a demographic data questionnaire for family members. Data analysis was performed with descriptive statistics, Chi-square test, and two-way mixed ANOVA. The results indicated that, after receiving the program, the mean scores on effective breastfeeding and perceived sufficient milk at days 3, 10, and 28 postpartum in the experiment group were significantly higher than before receiving the program and significantly higher than that of the control group. Nurses can integrate this program to train family members to support first-time mothers in breastfeeding continuously and increase first-time mothers’ confidence in their ability to breastfeed effectively and perceive milk sufficiency. However, further testing of the program effectiveness is warranted.

Effectiveness of Family-Based Diabetes Management Intervention on Glycated Haemoglobin Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

“…Among these, eight studies were carried out in developed countries: Ireland (Keogh et al, 2011), United States (McEwen et al, 2017; Nelson et al, 2017; Rosal et al, 2011; Rosland et al, 2022; Trief et al, 2016), Republic of China-Taiwan (Kang et al, 2010) and Spain (Coria et al, 2020). Additionally, ten RCTs were implemented in developing countries: Chile (García-Huidobro et al, 2011), Iran (Maslakpak et al, 2017; Tabasi et al, 2014), Brazil (Gomes et al, 2017), Thailand (Poonprapai et al, 2022; Sukchaisong et al, 2022; Wichit et al, 2017; Withidpanyawong et al, 2019), Marshall (McElfish et al, 2019), and Indonesia (Subrata et al, 2020). The total participant count across these studies was 2815, divided into two groups: those undergoing family-based interventions (1400 participants) and those undergoing usual care/non-family-based intervention (1415 participants).…”

“…Moreover, the baseline and post-intervention HbA1c levels were measured as the outcome measures. HbA1c values were assessed in six trials after 3 months (Keogh et al, 2011; Maslakpak et al, 2017; Subrata et al, 2020; Sukchaisong et al, 2022; Tabasi et al, 2014; Wichit et al, 2017), four studies after 6 months (García-Huidobro et al, 2011; Gomes et al, 2017; Kang et al, 2010; McEwen et al, 2017), two studies after 9 months (Poonprapai et al, 2022; Withidpanyawong et al, 2019), and six studies after 12 months (Coria et al, 2020; McElfish et al, 2019; Nelson et al, 2017; Rosal et al, 2011; Rosland et al, 2022; Trief et al, 2016).…”

“…Four researchers diligently assessed the quality of studies utilizing the JBI critical appraisal tools for RCTs (Supplementary File 3). Eight studies reported participant’s blinding to treatment assignment (Coria et al, 2020; Gomes et al, 2017; Kang et al, 2010; Keogh et al, 2011; Maslakpak et al, 2017; McElfish et al, 2019; Subrata et al, 2020; Trief et al, 2016); while trainers/counselors were blinded in three studies (Subrata et al, 2020; Sukchaisong et al, 2022; Withidpanyawong et al, 2019). Moreover, 12 studies blinded the assessors (Coria et al, 2020; Kang et al, 2010; Keogh et al, 2011; McElfish et al, 2019; Poonprapai et al, 2022; Rosal et al, 2011; Rosland et al, 2022; Subrata et al, 2020; Sukchaisong et al, 2022; Trief et al, 2016; Wichit et al, 2017; Withidpanyawong et al, 2019).…”

“…A total of six primary studies employed a combination of face-to-face and telephone-based interventions (Kang et al, 2010; Keogh et al, 2011; McEwen et al, 2017; Sukchaisong et al, 2022; Wichit et al, 2017; Withidpanyawong et al, 2019). These trials were underpinned by theoretical frameworks such as the self-efficacy theory(McEwen et al, 2019; Wichit et al, 2017), the information-motivation-behavioral skills model (Sukchaisong et al, 2022), the family partnership model (Kang et al, 2010; Withidpanyawong et al, 2019), and motivational interviewing approaches (Keogh et al, 2011).…”

“…Subsequently, 2–6 follow-up phone calls were conducted. Throughout this process, family members actively engaged in educational sessions, discussions, and evaluations (Keogh et al, 2011; McEwen et al, 2017; Sukchaisong et al, 2022; Wichit et al, 2017; Withidpanyawong et al, 2019). The intervention details are shown in Table 2.…”