Breastfeeding: Heritage and Pride™ (BHP)

Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2024

Effects shown in research

Child health

Findings rated high

Anderson, A. K., Damio, G., Young, S., Chapman, D. J., & Perez-Escamilla, R. (2005). A randomized trial assessing the efficacy of peer counseling on exclusive breastfeeding in a predominantly Latina low-income community. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159(9), 836–841. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.159.9.836

Breastfeeding: Heritage and Pride™ (BHP)

Show findings details

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Breastfeeding not initiated	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	At hospital discharge	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample	135 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.09	Unadjusted proportion = 0.24	Mean difference = -0.15	Study reported = 2.48	Statistically significant, p= <0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
Experiencing 1 or more diarrhea episodes	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	3 months old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample	135 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.18	Unadjusted proportion = 0.38	Mean difference = -0.20	Study reported = 2.15	Statistically significant, p= <0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
Non-exclusive breastfeeding	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	At hospital discharge	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample	135 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.41	Unadjusted proportion = 0.56	Mean difference = -0.15	Study reported = 1.35	Not statistically significant, p= >0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (24 hour recall)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 month old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample	135 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.65	Unadjusted proportion = 0.92	Mean difference = -0.27	Study reported = 1.41	Statistically significant, p= <0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (24 hour recall)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	2 months old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample	135 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.71	Unadjusted proportion = 0.96	Mean difference = -0.24	Study reported = 1.34	Statistically significant, p= <0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (24 hour recall)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	3 months old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample	135 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.73	Unadjusted proportion = 0.97	Mean difference = -0.24	Study reported = 1.33	Statistically significant, p= <0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (previous week's recall)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 month old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample	135 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.67	Unadjusted proportion = 0.92	Mean difference = -0.25	Study reported = 1.38	Statistically significant, p= <0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (previous week's recall)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	2 months old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample	135 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.75	Unadjusted proportion = 0.96	Mean difference = -0.21	Study reported = 1.29	Statistically significant, p= <0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (previous week's recall)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	3 months old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample	135 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.75	Unadjusted proportion = 0.97	Mean difference = -0.23	Study reported = 1.30	Statistically significant, p= <0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (since birth recall)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 month old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample	135 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.73	Unadjusted proportion = 0.93	Mean difference = -0.20	Study reported = 1.27	Statistically significant, p= <0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (since birth recall)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	2 months old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample	135 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.76	Unadjusted proportion = 0.99	Mean difference = -0.22	Study reported = 1.29	Statistically significant, p= <0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (since birth recall)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	3 months old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample	135 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.79	Unadjusted proportion = 0.99	Mean difference = -0.19	Study reported = 1.24	Statistically significant, p= <0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
Not breastfeeding	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	3 months old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample	135 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.51	Unadjusted proportion = 0.64	Mean difference = -0.13	Study reported = 1.26	Not statistically significant, p= >0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.

Chapman, D. J., Damio, G., Young, S., & Perez-Escamilla, R. (2004). Effectiveness of breastfeeding peer counseling in a low-income, predominantly Latina population: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158(9), 897-902. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.158.9.897

Breastfeeding: Heritage and Pride™ (BHP)

Show findings details

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Exclusive breastfeeding	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 month old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2000-2003, full sample	157 mother/child dyads	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = 1.07	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
No initiation or cessation of breastfeeding	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 month old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2000-2003, full sample	157 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.36	Unadjusted proportion = 0.49	Mean difference = -0.14	Study reported = 0.72	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
No initiation or cessation of breastfeeding	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	3 months old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2000-2003, full sample	153 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.56	Unadjusted proportion = 0.71	Mean difference = -0.15	Study reported = 0.78	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
No initiation or cessation of breastfeeding	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	6 months old	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2000-2003, full sample	144 mother/child dyads	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = 0.94	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.
No initiation or cessation of breastfeeding	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	birth	BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2000-2003, full sample	165 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.09	Unadjusted proportion = 0.23	Mean difference = -0.14	Study reported = 0.39	Statistically significant, p <0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. The reported effect size is the relative risk, which is expressed as a positive value.

View Revisions