You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 11, Issue 2
  • Relationship between obesity and lower rates of breast feeding initiation in regional Victoria, Australia: an 8-year retrospective panel study

Article Text

Article menu
XML
Obstetrics and gynaecology
Original research
Relationship between obesity and lower rates of breast feeding initiation in regional Victoria, Australia: an 8-year retrospective panel study
  1. Melanie Rae Bish1,
  2. Fiona Faulks2,
  3. Lisa Helen Amir3,
  4. Rachel R Huxley4,5,
  5. Harold David McIntyre6,7,
  6. Rachel James8,
  7. George Mnatzaganian9
  1. 1 La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 Rural Department of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3 Judith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4 Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5 The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  6. 6 School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  7. 7 Mater Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  8. 8 Department of Women’s & Children’s Services, Bendigo Health, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
  9. 9 Rural Department of Community Health, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr George Mnatzaganian; G.Mnatzaganian{at}latrobe.edu.au

Abstract

Objectives Using routinely collected hospital data, this study explored secular trends over time in breast feeding initiation in a large Australian sample. The association between obesity and not breast feeding was investigated utilising a generalised estimating equations logistic regression that adjusted for sociodemographics, antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum conditions, mode of delivery and infant’s-related covariates.

Design Population-based retrospective panel.

Setting A regional hospital that serves 26% of Victoria’s 6.5 million population in Australia.

Participants All women experiencing live births between 2010 and 2017 were included. Women with missing body mass index (BMI) were excluded.

Results A total of 7491 women contributed to 10 234 live births. At baseline, 57.2% of the women were overweight or obese, with obesity increasing over 8 years by 12.8%, p=0.001. Although, breast feeding increased over time, observed in all socioeconomic status (SES) and BMI categories, the lowest proportions were consistently found among the obese and morbidly obese (78.9% vs 87.1% in non-obese mothers, p<0.001). In the multivariable analysis, risk of not breast feeding was associated with higher BMI, teenage motherhood, smoking, belonging to the lowest SES class, gravidity >4 and undergoing an assisted vaginal or caesarean delivery. Compared with women with a normal weight, the obese and morbidly obese were 66% (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.96, p<0.001) to 2.6 times (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.07 to 3.29, p<0.001) less likely to breast feed, respectively. The detected dose–response effect between higher BMI and lower breast feeding was not explained by any of the study covariates.

Conclusion This study provides evidence of increasing breast feeding proportions in regional Victoria over the past decade. However, these proportions were lowest among the obese and morbidly obese and those coming from the most disadvantaged backgrounds suggesting the need for targeted interventions to support breast feeding among these groups. The psychosocial and physiological associations between obesity and breast feeding should further be investigated.

  • obstetrics
  • public health
  • nutrition & dietetics
  • neonatology
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044884

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • This 8-year population-based study used routinely collected maternal data from a regional hospital that serves 26% of Victoria’s 6.5 million population in Australia.

    • Missing information was not common as all study variables were entered into compulsory data fields that were completed by midwives and hospital staff.

    • The analyses accounted for change in body mass index over time among women giving birth more than once during the study period.

    • The data were limited to the hospital stay and no information was available on breast feeding after hospital discharge.

    • Social status classification was based on a postcode-based composite variable which could have misclassified the true socioeconomic status.

    Introduction

    There is substantial evidence of significant health risks for mothers and infants related to not breast feeding.1 2 WHO recommends that infants be breast fed exclusively until 6 months of age to achieve optimal growth, development and health, with breast feeding continuing as a part of the infant’s diet up to 2 years of age or beyond.3 However, current breast feeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation. The reported trends in breast feeding over time, whether increasing or decreasing, have also not been consistent.

    Initiation of breast feeding during the first month of life has substantial benefits in reducing neonatal morbidity and mortality, enhancing mother child bonding and increasing the probability of lengthening the duration of breast feeding.2 Relative to other high-income countries, in Australia, breast feeding initiation rates are regarded as relatively high (90%).4 However, in regional and rural Australian populations, these rates have been consistently lower than that reported in urban populations with exclusive breast feeding decreasing in all almost immediately following hospital discharge resulting in less than 20% of babies being exclusively breast fed by 6 months.4

    High maternal body mass index (BMI) is negatively associated with breast feeding initiation,5–8 but it remains unclear if the association is confounded by other risk factors such as mother’s age, low socioeconomic status (SES), comorbidities or antenatal, intrapartum or postpartum conditions or neonate’s overall health.9 10 Changes in breast feeding initiation rates across three national surveys in Australia concluded that although these rates increased from 86% in 1995 to 88% in 2004–2005, they were consistently lower in women belonging to lower socioeconomic groups.10 Different breast feeding patterns have also been described by ethnicity and racial background.9 11

    This 8-year panel study explored secular trends over time in the prevalence of breast feeding initiation before hospital discharge by maternal BMI and socioeconomic disadvantage in a large regional population in Victoria, Australia. The association between maternal obesity and not breast feeding was investigated adjusting for mother’s age, SES, comorbidities, antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum conditions, mode of delivery, infant’s birth weight and infant’s admission to a special care unit.

    Methods

    All analyses used unidentifiable data. The need for informed consent was waived by the ethics committees.

    Patient and public involvement statement

    Patients or the general public were not involved in the design, or research objectives of this 8-year panel study that used routinely collected hospital data. The development of the research questions and outcome measures were not informed by patients’ priorities, experiences or preferences.

    Participants

    Data from all women giving birth to live infants at a large regional health service providing level 5 maternity care to approximately 26% of Victoria’s population between January 2010 and December 2017 were included in this retrospective unbalanced panel analysis. Women with a missing anthropometric measure were excluded.

    Variables

    All study variables including socio-demographic, antenatal, intrapartum, postpartum and breast feeding data were collected from the Birthing Outcome System database, which is an electronic, hospital-based integrated data collection tool that facilitates longitudinal patient data recording.12 All repeat births for women presenting more than once during the study period were included. The weight and height were measured by the midwife at the first antenatal appointment. This first visit indicates a woman’s intention to give birth at the facility and initiates the pregnancy care pathway. All study variables were mandatory variables recorded by the midwives and hospital staff before the mother’s discharge.

    Definitions

    For this analysis, breast feeding (yes/no) was defined as any breast milk feeding in hospital (during hospital stay or on day of discharge). Women who chose to feed their infants expressed breast milk were considered to be breast feeding. Similarly, those who fed their infants with any breast milk together with formula were listed as breast fed.

    Socioeconomic disadvantage was estimated by constructing a relative index of socioeconomic inequality (RII),13 which is a regression-based index that accounts for the sample size and relative disadvantage scores of each participant. The index was constructed using the Socioeconomic Indexes for Areas-Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (SEIFA) obtained from the Australian 2006 and 2011 Census data.14 SEIFA is a composite index of relative advantage or disadvantage based on geographic areas across Australia, with higher scores indicating less socio-economic disadvantage. The estimated RII was further introduced as quintiles categorised according to the score’s distribution in the sample.

    The WHO BMI classifications were utilised (underweight (BMI less than 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25.0–29.9 kg/m2), obese class I (BMI 30.0–34.9 kg/m2), obese class II (BMI 35.0–39.9 kg/m2) and obese class III (BMI >40.0 kg/m2)).15

    Analysis

    Change in breast feeding over time by BMI and RII categories was tested using Augmented Dickey-Fuller tests. The Mackinnon approximate p value of this test needs to be insignificant (ie, larger than 0.05) in order to accept the null hypothesis and conclude that the time series is non‐stationary. A trendline fitting the data was drawn with R-squared estimated to ascertain a linear trend.

    Characteristics of women who did and did not breast feed during their hospital stay were compared using Pearson χ2 tests for categorical variables and Student’s t-test for continuous variables. Not breast feeding was modelled in a multivariable logistic regression using the generalised estimating equations (GEE) approach. In the model, the effect of the covariates on the study outcome was averaged over individuals at each point in time and was compared over time.16

    The dose–response effects of different levels of RII and different BMI categories on not breast feeding were tested using log likelihood ratio tests, with nested regression models compared with determine whether a model was rich enough to capture data trends. The dose–response tests were confined to the first delivery and to a randomly selected delivery per woman during the 8-year study period. An insignificant p value of the log likelihood test indicates linearity.

    All analyses were performed using Stata/SE V.15.0 (StataCorp).

    Results

    Maternal characteristics

    During the 8-year study period, 10 382 births were recorded, of which 77 (0.7%) were stillborn. Of the 10 305 live births, 71 births (0.7%) had missing information on maternal weight or height and were excluded. Of the 7491 women contributing to the remaining 10 234 births, 5151 (68.8%) were primiparous, 1988 (26.5%) delivered twice, while the remaining 352 (4.7%) had >3 births. Overall mean parity was 1.1 (SD 1.2) remaining constant over the study period (p=0.51). Mean length of maternal postpartum hospital stay was 2.2 (SD 1.2) days remaining relatively constant over time (2.3 days in 2010 vs 2.2 days in 2017).

    A total of 161 women experienced twin births (1.6% of the total 10 234 births). Other maternal descriptive characteristics are shown in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Sociodemographic characteristics of study sample by breast feeding status during hospital stay at baseline

    Breast feeding

    In the study, 10 234 women–child pairs, women exclusively breast fed in hospital in 62.5% of the births, whereas in 22.2% of the births, women breast fed and/or gave expressed breast milk with or without formula. In the remaining 15.4% of the births, the infants were exclusively fed with formula. Compared with women who breast fed, women who did not breast feed were younger, belonged to lower socioeconomic classes, had higher BMI, smoked more, had more comorbid conditions and were less likely to deliver vaginally (table 2). Breast feeding was also significantly lower in women of infants admitted to special care units.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Medical and birthing history of women by breast feeding status during hospital stay at baseline

    Compared with women with normal weight, breast feeding was less prevalent among the obese and morbidly obese groups (p<0.001). This association was consistent over the years and in each type of delivery (online supplemental table 1). Significantly lower proportions of breast feeding were also observed in lower SES groups; however, this was not consistently observed in each of the years as shown in online supplemental table 2).

    Supplemental material

    During the study period, the prevalence of breast feeding increased from 82% in 2010 to 87% in 2017, p<0.001. Not breast feeding varied from 12.7% to 18.3%, being consistently lower in women with a normal BMI ranging from 9.2% to 15.3% and higher in the obese class I (ranging from 14.6% to 23.7%), obese class II (ranging from 16.4% to 26.8%), and obese class III (ranging from 20.7% to 40.7%). However, over time, breast feeding significantly increased in each of the BMI categories (with MacKinnon test p>0.05 in each BMI category), with an R-squared of 0.754 for all groups together (figure 1). Increasing trends in breast feeding were similarly detected in each SES class.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Age-adjusted proportions of women who breast fed before hospital discharge over time by BMI category. BMI, body mass index.

    Prevalence of not breast feeding increased in a dose–response manner with increasing BMI (likelihood ratio test χ2=1.7 (p=0.649)). These dose–response effects were detected when the test was run on the first and a randomly selected birth per woman during study period.

    In the multivariable GEE model that accounted for all variables listed in online supplemental table 3) and repeat births over time, lower rates of breast feeding were also independently associated with teenage motherhood, belonging to the most disadvantaged SES quintile, past or current smoking, being an Indigenous Australian or Torres Strait Islander, gravidity ≥4, having underweight infants (<2500 g) and admission of infant to a special care unit. Mothers who underwent an unassisted vaginal delivery were significantly more likely to breast feed compared with instrumental or caesarean births (figure 2). Morbidly obese women coming from the most disadvantaged SES class had the highest risk of not breast feeding as shown in figure 3.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    GEE model-based risk adjusted ORs of not breast feeding before hospital discharge by selected covariates. BMI, body mass index; GEE, generalised estimating equations; SES, socioeconomic status.

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    GEE model-based risk adjusted ORs of not breast feeding before hospital discharge by BMI and socioeconomic disadvantage categories (reference group: ‘SES fifth quintile (least disadvantaged) and having a BMI <25.0’). BMI, body mass index; GEE, generalised estimating equations; SES, socioeconomic status.

    Discussion

    This large-scale study provides evidence that breast feeding is increasing in a regional Australian population. However, breast feeding initiation was lower among women with high BMIs and those coming from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

    Obesity remains a significant challenge to our public health strategy as recent data indicate that over 58% of Australian women are overweight or obese17 and while breast feeding rates remain relatively stable in Australia, our study suggests women with high BMI continue to initiate breast feeding at lower rates than normal weight women. Our findings are similar to the Canadian cohort study conducted in Quebec City from 2005 to 2010,18 which found 20% of women in the obese category did not initiate breast feeding before hospital discharge compared with 12% of women in the normal weight category. Their definition of initiation was ‘any provision of the mother’s own breast milk (expressed or directly from the breast) to the infant at least once between birth and hospital discharge’, as in our study. These authors found that lower initiation was partially mediated by mode of delivery, gestational diabetes, type of anaesthesia and transfer to neonatal unit.18 They further argued that the association between intention to breast feed and actual breast feeding was not as strong in women with obesity, who encountered higher perinatal risk factors than normal weight women. In our study, overall, 21% of obese women did not initiate breast feeding before hospital discharge compared with 14% and 12% of overweight and normal weight women, respectively. Maternal and neonatal conditions, however, did not explain the lower breast feeding rates among the obese.

    In addition to the high risk of maternal and infant complications secondary to maternal obesity,19 large women are more likely to experience physical difficulties with attaching their newborn to their breasts and to have delayed lactogenesis and low milk supply.20 21 Specific interventions targeted at improving breast feeding rates in the individuals with high BMIs need to be explored with a focus on preconception weight loss and public awareness of the associated perinatal outcomes for women who are over their ideal weight. There is a paucity of evidence demonstrating any positive impact of specific interventions to address breast feeding initiation rates among women with high BMI. In their study of targeted interventions for women with high BMI—additional telephone-based support from lactation consultants and provision of a breast pump to stimulate milk supply—Rasmussen et al were unable to demonstrate improved breast feeding duration among women with high BMI.22 Similarly, Chapman et al evaluated peer counselling (in person) targeting overweight/obese women from low income environments with no impact on exclusive breast feeding rates or breast feeding continuation.23 However, these authors did demonstrate improvements in breast feeding intensity (providing ≥50% of feedings as breast milk) 2 weeks after birth and lower rates of infant hospitalisation at three and 6 months.23

    The link between socioeconomic disadvantage and risk of obesity is well reported and public health strategies aimed at women, particularly those who are living with social deprivation and disadvantage, would be most beneficial.24 Recognition and response to the significant link between social disadvantage and obesity would assist in guiding public health initiatives to improve breast feeding initiation rates within this vulnerable group. Continuity of midwifery care (an intervention that aims to improve breast feeding rates among socially disadvantaged women) may mitigate some of the factors that contribute to low breast feeding rates in women with high BMI through the development of a safe, trusting relationship with a midwife that continues throughout the pregnancy, birth and into the postnatal period.25 26 In addition, ensuring access to services within the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods may also support women in these communities to engage and benefit from initiatives that aim to increase breast feeding success in this vulnerable group.27 Additionally, effectively managing maternal obesity among the most socioeconomically disadvantaged would have a direct and positive impact on maternal health of this vulnerable group and the perinatal sequalae that follow.

    The strong associations we found between higher BMI and less breast feeding could not be explained by maternal sociodemographic or antenatal, intrapartum or postpartum factors. These were also not explained by the infant’s birth weight or admission to a special care unit. These findings warrant future studies to further investigate and understand the psychosocial and physiological associations between obesity and breast feeding.

    Limitations

    Utilisation of an electronic system in retrospect for diagnosis of conditions and complications relies on accuracy of coding, limiting the ability to confirm a standardisation in definition of disease.28 Our data were limited to the hospital stay and we had no information on breast feeding after hospital discharge. Breast feeding was recorded as a yes/no event occurring at any time following birth until discharge. We did not have any data on whether women who initiated breast feeding continued breast feeding on their day of discharge. We had no information on intention to breast feed. SEIFA is a composite variable which could have misclassified the actual SES.

    Conclusion

    Although breast feeding is on the rise, strong independent inverse associations between BMI and breast feeding were detected in a population-based sample. A regional healthcare context demands the identification of obese women accessing maternity services as a high-risk group to be targeted for directed, strategic interventions to support breast feeding. Fundamental to improvements in breast feeding and breast feeding rates is the recognition that promoting and supporting breast feeding ‘is a collective societal responsibility’.29 Women need support from their partner, their family, their community and their government to create and protect an environment of safety in which women are enabled and actively emboldened to breast feed their babies.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors thank all staff members who facilitated data acquisition especially Ms Jennifer Pitson.

    References

    1. ↵
      2. Victora CG ,
      3. Bahl R ,
      4. Barros AJD , et al
      . Breastfeeding in the 21st century: epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. Lancet 2016;387:475–90.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01024-7 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26869575
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      2. Rollins NC ,
      3. Bhandari N ,
      4. Hajeebhoy N , et al
      . Why invest, and what it will take to improve breastfeeding practices? Lancet 2016;387:491–504.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01044-2 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26869576
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . Infant and young child feeding, 2020. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infant-and-young-child-feeding [Accessed 28 Jul 2020].
    4. ↵
      1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
      . Australian National infant feeding survey: indicator results 2011. Canberra: AIHW, 2010.
    5. ↵
      2. Thompson LA ,
      3. Zhang S ,
      4. Black E , et al
      . The association of maternal pre-pregnancy body mass index with breastfeeding initiation. Matern Child Health J 2013;17:1842–51.doi:10.1007/s10995-012-1204-7 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23247667
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    6. ↵
      2. Campbell T ,
      3. Shackleton N
      . Pre-pregnancy body mass index and breastfeeding initiation, early cessation and longevity: evidence from the first wave of the UK millennium cohort study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2018;72:1124–31.doi:10.1136/jech-2017-209074 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30201697
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      2. Coo H ,
      3. Fabrigar L ,
      4. Davies G , et al
      . Are observed associations between a high maternal prepregnancy body mass index and offspring IQ likely to be causal? J Epidemiol Community Health 2019;73:920–8.doi:10.1136/jech-2019-212257 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31358534
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      2. Amir LH ,
      3. Donath S
      . A systematic review of maternal obesity and breastfeeding intention, initiation and duration. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2007;7:9. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-7-9 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17608952
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. ↵
      2. Kitsantas P ,
      3. Gaffney KF ,
      4. Kornides ML
      . Prepregnancy body mass index, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity and breastfeeding practices. J Perinat Med 2011;40:77–83.doi:10.1515/JPM.2011.106 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22044008
      OpenUrlPubMed
    10. ↵
      2. Amir LH ,
      3. Donath SM
      . Socioeconomic status and rates of breastfeeding in Australia: evidence from three recent national health surveys. Med J Aust 2008;189:254–6.doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb02016.x pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18759719
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      2. Arora A ,
      3. Manohar N ,
      4. Hayen A , et al
      . Determinants of breastfeeding initiation among mothers in Sydney, Australia: findings from a birth cohort study. Int Breastfeed J 2017;12:39. doi:10.1186/s13006-017-0130-0 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28932255
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. ↵
      2. Ward MC ,
      3. Agarwal A ,
      4. Bish M , et al
      . Trends in obesity and impact on obstetric outcomes in a regional hospital in Victoria, Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2020;60:204–11.doi:10.1111/ajo.13035 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31353441
      OpenUrlPubMed
    13. ↵
      2. Mackenbach JP ,
      3. Kunst AE
      . Measuring the magnitude of socio-economic inequalities in health: an overview of available measures illustrated with two examples from Europe. Soc Sci Med 1997;44:757–71.doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00073-1 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9080560
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Australian Bureau of Statistics
      . SEIFA: socio-economic indexes for areas. Available: https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/seifa [Accessed 28 Jul 2020].
    15. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . Body mass index (BMI). Available: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/theme-details/GHO/body-mass-index-(bmi) [Accessed 28 Jul 2020].
    16. ↵
      2. Liang K-YEE ,
      3. Zeger SL
      . Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986;73:13–22.doi:10.1093/biomet/73.1.13
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
      . International health data comparisons, 2020. cat. No. Phe 255. Canberra: AIHW, 2020. Available: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/international-comparisons/international-health-data-comparisons [Accessed 20 Nov 2020].
    18. ↵
      2. Verret-Chalifour J ,
      3. Giguère Y ,
      4. Forest J-C , et al
      . Breastfeeding initiation: impact of obesity in a large Canadian perinatal cohort study. PLoS One 2015;10:e0117512. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117512 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25659144
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      2. Galtier-Dereure F ,
      3. Boegner C ,
      4. Bringer J
      . Obesity and pregnancy: complications and cost. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71:1242S–8.doi:10.1093/ajcn/71.5.1242s pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10799397
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      2. Katz KA ,
      3. Nilsson I ,
      4. Rasmussen KM
      . Danish health care providers' perception of breastfeeding difficulty experienced by women who are obese, have large breasts, or both. J Hum Lact 2010;26:138–47.doi:10.1177/0890334409349805 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19910520
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      2. Hauff LE ,
      3. Leonard SA ,
      4. Rasmussen KM
      . Associations of maternal obesity and psychosocial factors with breastfeeding intention, initiation, and duration. Am J Clin Nutr 2014;99:524–34.doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.071191 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24401717
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      2. Rasmussen KM ,
      3. Dieterich CM ,
      4. Zelek ST , et al
      . Interventions to increase the duration of breastfeeding in obese mothers: the Bassett improving breastfeeding study. Breastfeed Med 2011;6:69–75.doi:10.1089/bfm.2010.0014 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20958105
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      2. Chapman DJ ,
      3. Morel K ,
      4. Bermúdez-Millán A , et al
      . Breastfeeding education and support trial for overweight and obese women: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2013;131:e162–70.doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0688 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23209111
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    24. ↵
      2. Ghosh A ,
      3. Charlton KE ,
      4. Batterham MJ
      . Socioeconomic disadvantage and its implications for population health planning of obesity and overweight, using cross-sectional data from general practices from a regional catchment in Australia. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010405. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010405 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27142857
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      2. D'haenens F ,
      3. Van Rompaey B ,
      4. Swinnen E , et al
      . The effects of continuity of care on the health of mother and child in the postnatal period: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health 2020;30:749–60.doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckz082 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31121019
      OpenUrlPubMed
    26. ↵
      2. Homer CS ,
      3. Leap N ,
      4. Edwards N , et al
      . Midwifery continuity of carer in an area of high socio-economic disadvantage in London: a retrospective analysis of albany midwifery practice outcomes using routine data (1997-2009). Midwifery 2017;48:1–10.doi:10.1016/j.midw.2017.02.009 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28284877
      OpenUrlPubMed
    27. ↵
      2. Yourkavitch J ,
      3. Kane JB ,
      4. Miles G
      . Neighborhood disadvantage and neighborhood affluence: associations with breastfeeding practices in urban areas. Matern Child Health J 2018;22:546–55.doi:10.1007/s10995-017-2423-8 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29294250
      OpenUrlPubMed
    28. ↵
      2. Mnatzaganian G ,
      3. Ryan P ,
      4. Norman PE , et al
      . Accuracy of hospital morbidity data and the performance of comorbidity scores as predictors of mortality. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:107–15.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.014 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21803545
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      2. Smith J ,
      3. Cattaneo A ,
      4. Iellamo A , et al
      . Review of effective strategies to promote breastfeeding: an evidence check rapid review brokered by the sax Institute for the Department of health, 2018. Available: www.saxinstitute.org.au

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @Lisa_H_Amir

    • Contributors MRB and GM: research conception and design, interpretation of results, manuscript drafting and critical revision of manuscript. GM: statistical analysis. FF: data acquisition. FF, RRH, HDM, LHA and RJ: interpretation of the results and critical revision of manuscript. All authors approved the final draft of this manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committees of the hospital and La Trobe University (reference number LNR/16/BHCG/50).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.