↓ Skip to main content

Association between the use of a baby's bottle and pacifier and the absence of breastfeeding in the second six months of life

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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.
Title
Association between the use of a baby's bottle and pacifier and the absence of breastfeeding in the second six months of life
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, April 2015
DOI 10.1590/1413-81232015204.00782014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renata Ribeiro Rigotti, Maria Inês Couto de Oliveira, Cristiano Siqueira Boccolini

Abstract

The World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding for two years or more and advises against bottle feeding and pacifier use. Investigate the association between bottle feeding and pacifier use, and breastfeeding in the second half-year of life. Survey in a municipality of Rio de Janeiro state, in 2006, interviewing those responsible for 580 children aged 6-11 months. Bottle feeding and pacifier use, and variables which in the bivariate analysis were associated with the outcome 'absence of breastfeeding' (≥ 0.20), were selected for multiple analysis. Adjusted prevalence ratios were obtained by a Poisson regression model. 40% of the children 6-11 months were not being breastfed, 47% used a pacifier and 57% used a bottle. Pacifier use (PR = 3.245; CI95%: 2.490-4.228) and bottle feeding (PR = 1.605; CI95%: 1.273-2.023) were shown to be strongly associated with the outcome, and also with: mother's low schooling (PR = 0.826; CI95%: 0.689-0.990); low birth weight (PR = 1.488; CI95%: 1.159-1.910); mother not being the baby carer (PR = 1.324; CI95%: 1.080-1.622); and increasing age of the baby in days (PR = 1.004; CI95%: 1.002-1.006). The use of pacifiers and bottles can reduce continued breastfeeding. Stronger discouragement of these artifacts should be adopted in public health policies.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 25%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 25%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 9 20%

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 14 May 2015.
All research outputs
#11,151,875
of 12,536,156 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#406
of 505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,164
of 234,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,536,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 505 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 234,508 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them