Manuscript Details

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

Peer Reviewed

Model(s): Breastfeeding: Heritage and Pride™ (BHP)
High rating
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 2
Study design characteristics contributing to rating
Design Attrition Baseline equivalence Confounding factors? Valid, reliable measures?
Randomized controlled trial Low

Not assessed for randomized controlled trials with low attrition

No

Yes
Child Health
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
Breastfeeding not initiated At hospital discharge High
2.48 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Experiencing 1 or more diarrhea episodes 3 months old High
2.15 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Non-exclusive breastfeeding At hospital discharge High
1.35 Not statistically significant, p= >0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (24 hour recall) 1 month old High
1.41 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (24 hour recall) 2 months old High
1.34 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (24 hour recall) 3 months old High
1.33 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (previous week's recall) 1 month old High
1.38 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (previous week's recall) 2 months old High
1.29 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (previous week's recall) 3 months old High
1.30 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (since birth recall) 1 month old High
1.27 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (since birth recall) 2 months old High
1.29 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Non-exclusive breastfeeding (since birth recall) 3 months old High
1.24 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Not breastfeeding 3 months old High
1.26 Not statistically significant, p= >0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant
Maternal Health
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
Maternal lactational amenorrhea status 3 months old High
1.40 Statistically significant, p= <0.05 135 mother/child dyads BHP and conventional breastfeeding support vs. conventional breastfeeding support RCT, Connecticut, 2003-2004, full sample
Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant

Note: Tables do not include findings that HomVEE rated low or indeterminate, or found to be ineligible for review.

This study included participants with the following characteristics at enrollment:

Race/Ethnicity

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if Hispanic ethnicity was reported separately or respondents could select two or more race or ethnicity categories.

Black or African American
18%
Hispanic or Latino
72%
White
7%
Some other race
3%

Maternal Education

Less than a high school diploma
35%
High school diploma or GED
33%
Unknown
32%

Other Characteristics

Enrollment in means-tested programs
90%

This study included participants from the following locations:

  • Connecticut
Study Participants

Pregnant women were recruited at prenatal clinics. To be eligible, the mother had to be age 18 or older, up to 32 weeks pregnant, have no medical conditions that could impair successful breastfeeding, and have household earnings below 185 percent of the federal poverty level. At the time of birth, mother-child dyads were screened a final time and deemed eligible for the study if the newborn was born at term and with normal birth weight, no medical complications requiring treatment in the neonatal intensive care unit, and an Apgar score of 6 or higher at one and five minutes after birth. Among eligible mothers, 77 were randomly assigned to the Breastfeeding: Heritage and Pride™ (BHP) home visiting intervention group and 85 to the comparison group. The analytic sample included 135 mother-child dyads, 63 in the BHP group and 72 in the comparison group. Outcomes were measured at birth and at one month, two months, and three months postpartum. Seventy-two percent of mothers were Hispanic, 18 percent were Black, seven percent were Caucasian, and three percent reported they were another race.

Setting

The study took place in Hartford, Connecticut.

Intervention condition
Breastfeeding: Heritage and Pride™ (BHP)

Note: Navigate to the model page for more information about the home visiting model. See the source manuscript for more information about how the model was implemented in this study.

Comparison Conditions

Mothers assigned to the comparison condition received conventional breastfeeding education at prenatal clinic visits, and one-on-one breastfeeding assistance and education during postpartum hospitalization. If any mothers experienced breastfeeding problems requiring assistance beyond that provided routinely by staff nurses, a hospital lactation consultant on duty provided support to the mother.

Subgroups examined

There were no subgroups reported in this manuscript.

Author Affiliation

The authors are affiliated with the University of Connecticut, the Hispanic Health Council, and Hartford Hospital. One of the authors is affiliated with the Hispanic Health Council, which sponsors the Breastfeeding: Heritage and Pride™ home visiting model.

Funding Sources

This research was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through a subcontract with the Association of Teachers of Preventative Medicine.