↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Legislation, policies and guidelines related to breastfeeding and the Baby Friendly Health Initiative in Australia: a document analysis
Published in
Australian Health Review, February 2017
DOI 10.1071/ah16067
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Objectives The aim of the present study was to assess the extent to which publicly available legislation, policy and guidelines related to breastfeeding and the Baby Friendly Health Initiative (BFHI) underpin and support the uptake and implementation of the BFHI in Australia.Methods Altheide's document analysis model (sample, data collection, data organisation, data analysis and report) was used to source and analyse publicly available legislation, policies and guidelines in Australia that were related to breastfeeding and the BFHI at national, state and professional organisational levels.Results Legislation documents contained no direct references to the BFHI or Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, despite the documents being supportive of breastfeeding. There is little reference to the Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes or to monitoring of the Marketing in Australia of Infant Formulae (MAIF) Agreement at national and state levels. A gap exists in documents that provide up-to-date records regarding monitoring of breastfeeding rates at the national level.Conclusions National and state guidelines are supportive of breastfeeding and the BFHI. However, the BFHI and Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes are not legislated in Australia and information related to breastfeeding rates is not up to date. A legislative establishment supporting the Code and establishing plans to monitor the MAIF Agreement and breastfeeding outcomes may influence uptake and implementation of the BFHI.What is known about the topic? Extensive evidence supports the health and economic benefits of breastfeeding. Despite a high initiation rate of breastfeeding in Australia (96%) most recently reported in 2010, the rate of breastfed infants dropped considerably over time: approximately 15% of infants were breastfed for the recommended 6 months. Research supports the positive effect of the BFHI on increasing breastfeeding rates and improving breastfeeding outcomes. In 2016, there are 69 Baby-friendly-accredited maternity facilities across Australia, compared with 77 accredited facilities in 2011 (~23% of all maternity facilities).What does this paper add? This is the first document analysis of publicly available legislation, policy and guidelines related to breastfeeding and the BFHI at Australian national, state and professional organisational levels to assess the extent to which these documents support breastfeeding, as well as the uptake and implementation of the BFHI. This study identifies strengths and weaknesses at legislative, policy and guideline levels that could potentially influence the uptake and implementation of the BFHI.What are the implications for practitioners? The uptake and implementation of the BFHI is potentially influenced by legislation, policy and guidelines at national and state levels. Given the low uptake of the BFHI in Australia, this analysis outlines the extent to which these documents support breastfeeding and the BFHI, and indicates what these documents lack with regard to supporting the uptake and implementation of the BFHI.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 21 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 28%
Social Sciences 8 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Psychology 4 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 23 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2017.
All research outputs
#26,775,243
of 32,394,374 outputs
Outputs from Australian Health Review
#1,085
of 1,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#357,082
of 456,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian Health Review
#20
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,394,374 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 456,714 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.