Breastfeeding rates differ significantly by method used

A cause for concern for public health measurement

Valerie J. Flaherman, Alyna T. Chien, Charles E. McCulloch, Adams Dudley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Accurate measurements of prevalence of "any" breastfeeding and "exclusive" breastfeeding help assess progress toward public health goals. We compared two commonly used data sources for measuring breastfeeding rates to assess agreement. Methods: The National Immunization Survey (NIS) is used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to measure progress toward national breastfeeding goals and obtains breastfeeding outcomes retrospectively at 19-35 months. The California Newborn Screen (CNS) is a contemporaneous measure of breastfeeding during birth hospitalization and measures progress toward public health goals in California. We compared results for "any breastfeeding" and "exclusive breastfeeding" for California infants in the NIS to those in the CNS using descriptive statistics. Results: Our results show that the two methods produce similar results for "any" breastfeeding at <4 days: 82.7%, 95% confidence interval (79.6%, 85.8%) in the NIS and 86.1% (86.0%, 86.2%) in the CNS. However, the two methods produce very different results for "exclusive" breastfeeding at <4 days: 60.4% (56.6%, 64.1%) in the NIS and 41.6% (41.5%, 41.7%) in the CNS. Rates of "exclusive" breastfeeding varied more for some subgroups; for Hispanics, estimates were 61.1% (56.1%, 66.1%) in the NIS and 29.7% (29.5%, 29.9%) in the CNS. Conclusions: There is good agreement between two disparate methods for assessing "any" breastfeeding rates. However, our findings suggest that the NIS, the CNS, or both are flawed measures of "exclusive" breastfeeding. Validated methods for measuring "exclusive" breastfeeding would allow improved monitoring of breastfeeding prevalence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)31-35
Number of pages5
JournalBreastfeeding Medicine
Volume6
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Breast Feeding
Public Health
Immunization
Newborn Infant
Information Storage and Retrieval
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
Hispanic Americans
Surveys and Questionnaires
Hospitalization

Cite this

Breastfeeding rates differ significantly by method used : A cause for concern for public health measurement. / Flaherman, Valerie J.; Chien, Alyna T.; McCulloch, Charles E.; Dudley, Adams.

In: Breastfeeding Medicine, Vol. 6, No. 1, 01.02.2011, p. 31-35.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Flaherman, Valerie J. ; Chien, Alyna T. ; McCulloch, Charles E. ; Dudley, Adams. / Breastfeeding rates differ significantly by method used : A cause for concern for public health measurement. In: Breastfeeding Medicine. 2011 ; Vol. 6, No. 1. pp. 31-35.
@article{d2bad3a73ab34e82a7e31d41d99e2805,
title = "Breastfeeding rates differ significantly by method used: A cause for concern for public health measurement",
abstract = "Objective: Accurate measurements of prevalence of {"}any{"} breastfeeding and {"}exclusive{"} breastfeeding help assess progress toward public health goals. We compared two commonly used data sources for measuring breastfeeding rates to assess agreement. Methods: The National Immunization Survey (NIS) is used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to measure progress toward national breastfeeding goals and obtains breastfeeding outcomes retrospectively at 19-35 months. The California Newborn Screen (CNS) is a contemporaneous measure of breastfeeding during birth hospitalization and measures progress toward public health goals in California. We compared results for {"}any breastfeeding{"} and {"}exclusive breastfeeding{"} for California infants in the NIS to those in the CNS using descriptive statistics. Results: Our results show that the two methods produce similar results for {"}any{"} breastfeeding at <4 days: 82.7{\%}, 95{\%} confidence interval (79.6{\%}, 85.8{\%}) in the NIS and 86.1{\%} (86.0{\%}, 86.2{\%}) in the CNS. However, the two methods produce very different results for {"}exclusive{"} breastfeeding at <4 days: 60.4{\%} (56.6{\%}, 64.1{\%}) in the NIS and 41.6{\%} (41.5{\%}, 41.7{\%}) in the CNS. Rates of {"}exclusive{"} breastfeeding varied more for some subgroups; for Hispanics, estimates were 61.1{\%} (56.1{\%}, 66.1{\%}) in the NIS and 29.7{\%} (29.5{\%}, 29.9{\%}) in the CNS. Conclusions: There is good agreement between two disparate methods for assessing {"}any{"} breastfeeding rates. However, our findings suggest that the NIS, the CNS, or both are flawed measures of {"}exclusive{"} breastfeeding. Validated methods for measuring {"}exclusive{"} breastfeeding would allow improved monitoring of breastfeeding prevalence.",
author = "Flaherman, {Valerie J.} and Chien, {Alyna T.} and McCulloch, {Charles E.} and Adams Dudley",
year = "2011",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/bfm.2010.0021",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "31--35",
journal = "Breastfeeding Medicine",
issn = "1556-8253",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Breastfeeding rates differ significantly by method used

T2 - A cause for concern for public health measurement

AU - Flaherman, Valerie J.

AU - Chien, Alyna T.

AU - McCulloch, Charles E.

AU - Dudley, Adams

PY - 2011/2/1

Y1 - 2011/2/1

N2 - Objective: Accurate measurements of prevalence of "any" breastfeeding and "exclusive" breastfeeding help assess progress toward public health goals. We compared two commonly used data sources for measuring breastfeeding rates to assess agreement. Methods: The National Immunization Survey (NIS) is used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to measure progress toward national breastfeeding goals and obtains breastfeeding outcomes retrospectively at 19-35 months. The California Newborn Screen (CNS) is a contemporaneous measure of breastfeeding during birth hospitalization and measures progress toward public health goals in California. We compared results for "any breastfeeding" and "exclusive breastfeeding" for California infants in the NIS to those in the CNS using descriptive statistics. Results: Our results show that the two methods produce similar results for "any" breastfeeding at <4 days: 82.7%, 95% confidence interval (79.6%, 85.8%) in the NIS and 86.1% (86.0%, 86.2%) in the CNS. However, the two methods produce very different results for "exclusive" breastfeeding at <4 days: 60.4% (56.6%, 64.1%) in the NIS and 41.6% (41.5%, 41.7%) in the CNS. Rates of "exclusive" breastfeeding varied more for some subgroups; for Hispanics, estimates were 61.1% (56.1%, 66.1%) in the NIS and 29.7% (29.5%, 29.9%) in the CNS. Conclusions: There is good agreement between two disparate methods for assessing "any" breastfeeding rates. However, our findings suggest that the NIS, the CNS, or both are flawed measures of "exclusive" breastfeeding. Validated methods for measuring "exclusive" breastfeeding would allow improved monitoring of breastfeeding prevalence.

AB - Objective: Accurate measurements of prevalence of "any" breastfeeding and "exclusive" breastfeeding help assess progress toward public health goals. We compared two commonly used data sources for measuring breastfeeding rates to assess agreement. Methods: The National Immunization Survey (NIS) is used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to measure progress toward national breastfeeding goals and obtains breastfeeding outcomes retrospectively at 19-35 months. The California Newborn Screen (CNS) is a contemporaneous measure of breastfeeding during birth hospitalization and measures progress toward public health goals in California. We compared results for "any breastfeeding" and "exclusive breastfeeding" for California infants in the NIS to those in the CNS using descriptive statistics. Results: Our results show that the two methods produce similar results for "any" breastfeeding at <4 days: 82.7%, 95% confidence interval (79.6%, 85.8%) in the NIS and 86.1% (86.0%, 86.2%) in the CNS. However, the two methods produce very different results for "exclusive" breastfeeding at <4 days: 60.4% (56.6%, 64.1%) in the NIS and 41.6% (41.5%, 41.7%) in the CNS. Rates of "exclusive" breastfeeding varied more for some subgroups; for Hispanics, estimates were 61.1% (56.1%, 66.1%) in the NIS and 29.7% (29.5%, 29.9%) in the CNS. Conclusions: There is good agreement between two disparate methods for assessing "any" breastfeeding rates. However, our findings suggest that the NIS, the CNS, or both are flawed measures of "exclusive" breastfeeding. Validated methods for measuring "exclusive" breastfeeding would allow improved monitoring of breastfeeding prevalence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79951988160&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79951988160&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/bfm.2010.0021

DO - 10.1089/bfm.2010.0021

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 31

EP - 35

JO - Breastfeeding Medicine

JF - Breastfeeding Medicine

SN - 1556-8253

IS - 1

ER -