http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6008-0987
Figures
Abstract
Background
Identifying key interventions to increase exclusive breastfeeding duration has been a challenge. Pacifier use has been associated with exclusive breastfeeding discontinuation in Brazil. However, the proportion of the improvement in exclusive breastfeeding duration attributable to pacifier use remains unknown.
Research aim
Quantify the proportion of increases in exclusive breastfeeding prevalence that can be attributed to reduced pacifier use over time.
Methods
Secondary data analyses of two nationally representative cross-sectional surveys conducted in States’ capitals in 1999 and in 2008 (N = 42,395 Brazilian infants under 6 months of age). We estimated the fraction of exclusive breastfeeding prevalence improvements that could be attributed to pacifier use based on multilevel regression analysis.
Results
From 1999 to 2008, there was an increase of 15.2 percentage points in exclusive breastfeeding prevalence and a decrease of approximately 17 percentage points in the prevalence of pacifier use among infants under 6 months. Reduction in pacifier use explained an increase in 5.5 percentage points’ exclusive breastfeeding rates. If pacifier use were to decrease from 41.6% (prevalence in 2008) to 14% (as found in New Zealand), there would be an expected additional increase in exclusive breastfeeding of approximately 12 percentage points.
Citation: Buccini G, Pérez-Escamilla R, D’Aquino Benicio MH, Justo Giugliani ER, Isoyama Venancio S (2018) Exclusive breastfeeding changes in Brazil attributable to pacifier use. PLoS ONE 13(12): e0208261. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208261
Editor: Jacobus P. van Wouwe, TNO, NETHERLANDS
Received: April 21, 2018; Accepted: November 13, 2018; Published: December 19, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Buccini et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: A de-identified data set is not possible to provide due to ethical and legal considerations. These sharing restrictions are imposed by the owners of the data, the Brazilian Ministry of Health, Department of Child Health. The authors declare that data from this study are available upon request directly to Dr. Fernanda Monteiro, the National Breastfeeding Coordinator at the Ministry of Health, Department of Child Health (fernanda.monteiro@saude.gov.br).
Funding: GB has received a doctorate fellowship funding from the Brazilian government through the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Personnel— CAPES Foundation. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Evidence of both short- and long-term benefits of breastfeeding on infant survival, health, and development, as well as on maternal health and human capital, are well documented [1, 2]. Over the last two decades, the prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) in infants under 6 months increased worldwide, from 24.9% in 1993 to 35.7% in 2013 [1]. In an effort to further improve EBF prevalence, the 2012 World Health Assembly (WHA) endorsed breastfeeding as one of the key global nutrition targets to foster a healthy, equitable, and sustainable future for individuals and nations. This target specifically calls for increasing the prevalence of EBF among infants up to six months of age to at least 50% by 2025. In Brazil EBF prevalence has increased over time, from 3.1% in 1986 to 41.3% in 2008, however at the current rate it would take another 6 years to reach the EBF rate of 50% [3]. This is an optimistic estimate as a recent study found that the rate of improvements in EBF prevalence has recently slowed down in Brazil. Indeed, for the first time in decades the EBF prevalence has not increased within the last seven years (2006–2013) [4]. Therefore, the EBF WHA goal will not be met unless key modifiable risk factors are identified.
Pacifier use may be a common modifiable risk factor for EBF discontinuation [5–7]. However, systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the relationship between pacifier use and shorter EBF duration have shown divergent results [8, 9]. Unfortunately the only two randomized clinical trials [10, 11] available to find out if there is a causal relationship between pacifier use and EBF duration have major methodological shortcomings that limit both the internal validity and the generalizability of findings [8]. Cross-sectional studies assessing the same population at different time points [7, 12] have consistently demonstrated a negative association between pacifier use and EBF duration, and 20 longitudinal studies point to a dose-response relationship [8].
Recommendations for pacifier use vary worldwide [13]. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the use of pacifier to prevent Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and that pacifiers can be introduced after breastfeeding is well established, at approximately 3 to 4 weeks of age [13, 14]. By contrast, WHO used to discourage the use of pacifiers in breastfed children as one of the “Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding” upon which the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) has been based [15]. Recently, the 2018 revised BFHI guidelines revised this step to counsel mothers on the use and risks of pacifiers. Clearly this is not a straight forward recommendation as it needs to take into account the potential benefits (e.g., SIDS) and risks (e.g. interference with EBF).
In this context, we undertook this study to estimate the potential impact of reducing pacifier use on EBF in Brazil. This study has important implications for Brazil and the rest of the world as to our knowledge it is the first time that the proposed attributable risk estimation is conducted anywhere in the world.
Materials and methods
This study used data from the First and Second National Surveys of Breastfeeding Prevalence conducted in 1999 and 2008, respectively, in all urban areas of Brazilian state capitals and in the Federal District. The surveys investigated feeding practices of infants under 1 year of age attending national immunization campaigns. These surveys have been found to provide precise population estimates, given the wide coverage of these campaigns [16].
Parents provided informed verbal consent to participate in the survey and all data were fully anonymized before being accessed for this study. The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Faculdade de Saúde Pública, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil (protocol no 766158, approved July 18 2014).
Sampling and data collection
The procedures employed at the two survey waves related to sampling and data collection were very similar and are described in detail elsewhere [17]. In brief, participants were selected based on two-stage complex sampling procedures. In the first stage, considering the number of children immunized in each center, random drawing of the immunization center within the capital immunization centers were selected; in the second stage, infants waiting to be vaccinated were also systematic randomly selected. Mothers were interviewed using a standard questionnaire with closed ended questions. Data were collected on socio-economic and demographic infant, maternal and household characteristics, pacifier use, and consumption of breast milk and other foods by the infant in the previous 24 hours [17, 18].
One capital was excluded from the analysis because it did not participate in the 1999 survey. Moreover, only infants under 6 months were included, as the primary outcome was EBF. The analytical sample was comprised by 42,395 participants (n = 24,810 infants from the 1999 survey and 17,585 from the 2008 survey).
Data analysis
Temporal variations in the prevalence of EBF.
As recommended by WHO, infants were considered to be exclusively breastfed if they received only breast milk (i.e., not any other solid or liquid foods) in the last 24 hours [18]. This information was obtained by asking mothers about breast milk consumption as well as tea, juice, water, and other milks, in addition to questions on the intake of solids in the last 24 hours. All these questions had had a dichotomous answer (yes/no). Temporal variations in EBF prevalence were estimated based on EBF prevalence in 1999 and 2008.
The outcome variable was EBF discontinuation, i.e., not being exclusively breastfed in the last 24 hours before the interview.
Variables.
The main independent variable was pacifier use in the last 24 hours (yes/no). Statistical analyses controlled for the following covariates that had previously been found to predict EBF [2, 19]: infant sex (female/male), type of delivery (vaginal/cesarean), maternal age (<20 years/20-34 years/≥35 years), maternal education level (0–8 years/9-12 years/>12 years), and maternal work status (does not work outside home/is on maternity leave or works outside home); infant age (0–60 days/61-120 days/121-180 days). Capital of residence was included as a contextual variable in the statistical models.
Multilevel analysis.
Analysis of the influence of pacifier use and covariates on temporal variations in EBF prevalence was performed in four stages. In the first stage, factors that could have influenced temporal variations in EBF were assessed. At first, changes in the results obtained for pacifier use and covariates were described, comparing results obtained in 1999 and 2008. Variables showing similar distributions in the two surveys (p>0.05) were not included in the next stage.
In the second stage, associations between EBF discontinuation and the factors studied in 1999 and 2008 were assessed using Poisson multilevel analysis with robust variance adjusted for infant age. At this stage, state capitals comprised level 2 (contextual variable) and individual maternal and infant data comprised level 1 (individual variables). In order to estimate the individual effect of the variables on the outcome, a hierarchical approach was used [20], following a statistical modelling steps established a priori (Fig 1) [2, 19]. The variable capital of residence was added to the initial model (model 0), organizing individual data according to the clusters used in the multilevel analysis. Subsequently, in model 1, the first variable included was maternal education (proxy for socioeconomic status); this variable was adjusted for in subsequent models. Likewise, variables related to maternal and delivery characteristics were added in model 2 to model 1 variables, and were controlled for in the subsequent model. A similar procedure was adopted for variables related to infant characteristics (model 3). Significant variables were maintained in the model even if they became non-significant after the inclusion of following model for fitness of the model. The fitness of model adjustment was assessed using the 2-log likelihood test. A significance level of 5% was adopted for considering a factor associated to the outcome after adjustment for variables within the same model and models added before. In the multilevel analysis, the fixed effects/random intercept model described by Snijders & Bosker was used [21].
The third stage involved decomposition of the combined effect of different factors associated with temporal variation in EBF prevalence into components attributable to the individual evolution of each factor that remained associated with the outcome in the second stage of analysis. This effect was estimated by calculating generalized potential impact fractions (PIF) [22–24]. This estimate is an extension of the concept of population attributable fraction to situations in which the distribution of risk factors changes, but the factors are not necessarily eliminated [22–24]. This approach can be used to predict an increase in EBF prevalence, for example, as a result of decreasing, but not eliminating, pacifier use. According to this approach, it is possible to assume that exposure to the risk factor is relevant to the occurrence of the negative outcome and that decreasing this exposure would help to reduce the risk of experiencing the outcome [24].
In order to estimate the PIF of each factor associated with temporal changes in the prevalence of EBF discontinuation, the equation proposed by Kleinbaum was used [23]:
where P1999 and P2008 are the estimated proportions of the exposure factor at the 1999 and 2008 surveys, respectively; and
is the mean adjusted prevalence ratio of the exposure factor obtained from the 1999 and 2008 surveys. PIF were calculated considering the adjusted estimators obtained from the hierarchical models of the 1999 and 2008 surveys in the multilevel analysis, as well as the initial and final magnitude range of each factor assessed, given the complexity of the sample design.
This way, PIF allows to estimate the effect that would be expected from a change in the distribution of each of the factors assessed on EBF prevalence. However, the effects estimated for each determinant should not be summed, as they tend to add up to more than the combined effect of all factors for simultaneous changes in the five determinants. This limitation, which prevents the perfect decomposition of the combined effect of changes in the five variables, results from the hypothetical assumption that changes in each variable will precede changes in the other variables, which is not always the case. Still, the estimate obtained for each variable will indicate its relative importance in the evolution of the prevalence of EBF discontinuation in the period assessed [25]. Therefore, PIF can be properly interpreted as the expected proportional decrease in the prevalence of EBF discontinuation resulting from changes observed in the distribution of the exposure factors over the 1999–2008 period, i.e., the proportion of EBF discontinuation that could be avoided by decreasing the occurrence of the risk factors (e.g., pacifier use) in the population assessed [23].
Finally, the fourth stage of analysis the etiological fraction or population attributable fraction (FAP) was calculated by comparing the expected proportional decrease in EBF discontinuation calculated by PIF and the expected decrease resulting from elimination of the exposure factor [22–24].
Simulation of scenarios for different prevalence rates of pacifier use.
Considering the prevalence of pacifier use in other countries, as reported in a multicenter study [26], we simulated four scenarios. For each of those scenarios, we estimated hypothetical PIF by investigating the association between decrease in pacifier use and EBF prevalence. In order to do that, we considered the 2008 survey as baseline for the simulation of possible “future” scenarios, and used the distribution of pacifier use and prevalence ratio found for the 2008 survey as reference for other calculations. Calculated this way, the hypothetical PIF represents the additional decrease in EBF discontinuation rates that could be achieved by decreasing the prevalence of pacifier use to the stipulated levels in the simulation.
The statistical analyses were performed with Stata software version 14.1, applying individual weighting factors of each survey to the standard error of the estimates. PIF was calculated using Excel version 14.1.0.
Results
EBF rates increased 15.2 percentage points between 1999 and 2008, corresponding to a mean annual increase of 1.6%. There was also a significant decrease in pacifier use, of approximately 17 percentage points (Table 1).
Pacifier use showed the highest prevalence ratio for EBF discontinuation at the two surveys, with a stronger magnitude of association in 2008 (Table 2). Lower maternal education, being a younger mother and mother working outside home were also associated with EBF discontinuation at the two waves. Cesarean, in turn, was a risk factor for EBF discontinuation only in the latest survey (Table 2).
Changes in the prevalence of pacifier use yielded a proportional decrease (PIF) of 5.5 percentage points in the prevalence of EBF discontinuation (Table 3 and Fig 2). Higher maternal education and age as well as access to maternity leave for the 6 months or not working outside also contributed to a proportional decrease (PIF) in the prevalence of EBF discontinuation (Table 3 and Fig 2).
If pacifier use were eliminated, the expected decrease in EBF discontinuation (FAP) would be of 16 percentage points (Table 3). Higher maternal education, being an older mother and mother not working outside home/on maternity leave would lead to smaller proportional decreases in EBF when compared to pacifier use. However these effect sizes are also important to improve EBF prevalence. If all mothers delivered vaginally, only a slight decrease would be expected in EBF discontinuation (1%).
If pacifier use decreased in Brazil from 41.6% (prevalence estimated at the latest survey in Brazil) to 14% (prevalence reported in New Zealand), there would be an expected additional decrease in EBF discontinuation of approximately 12 percentage points. This estimate assumes that all covariates assessed in this study would increase over time (Fig 3).
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to quantify the contribution of pacifier use reduction to the increase in EBF prevalence observed in Brazil. The results suggest that a reduction in the prevalence of pacifier use may be an effective intervention to promote EBF.
EBF prevalence in Brazilian infants under 6 months increased from 3.1% in 1986 to 41.3% in 2008 [3]. The annual increment of 1.6 percentage point evidenced between 1999 and 2008 is higher than the increase reported in other countries [27]. During the period of study, multiple efforts to increase breastfeeding prevalence in multiple countries happened, including in Brazil. This included the implementation of the BFHI which used to strongly discourage the use of pacifiers in the maternity ward and currently counsels on advising women on the use and risks of pacifier [15, 28]. Based on the attributable potential impact fraction (PIF) of pacifier use reduction identified in this study we conclude that reducing pacifier use can indeed help accelerate the rate of improvement in EBF prevalence in Brazil [3, 27, 29].
Notwithstanding, despite the substantial decrease observed in pacifier use, this practice is still very common in Brazil [8]. Therefore we recommend for Brazil and other countries with similar contexts to consider adding recommendations on pacifier use in interventions for breastfeeding promotion at the population level [30–32].
Specifically, three types of public health strategies could be considered for pacifier use recommendations and interventions [33]. First, an ecological or population approach with general messages on promoting breastfeeding by avoiding pacifier use could be directed to the entire population [10, 34]. The second strategy, adopting a selective and individualized approach targeting groups at higher risk for pacifier use, the messages would require providing specific information on pros (e.g. SIDS risk reduction) and cons (e.g. interference with EBF) of pacifier use [35–38]. There is evidence that a reduction in pacifier use can improve breastfeeding outcomes, including a lower risk of EBF discontinuation, in high-risk populations, e.g., mothers working outside home [39], adolescent mothers and grandmothers [40]. Likewise, an individualized approach for pacifier use is needed among mothers at high risk for depression [41, 42].
Finally, a third strategy, also following an individually tailored or selective approach, would comprise messages directed to the mothers of infants who already use a pacifier, including information, for example, on limiting the period of pacifier use, restricting its use at critical moments such as when a baby may be more demanding (fussier) than usual, and, once the habit is established, providing support for stopping it in a gradual and timely manner [43]. Interventions following a selective approach among high-risk groups may be more cost-effective and advantageous if delivered in the context of peer counseling [44, 45], considering each situation individually [33], with emphasis on offering hands-on counseling and support for the management of breastfeeding difficulties [46, 47], adapting the message based on maternal and family perceptions with regard to pacifier use [48, 49], providing information on the pros and cons of pacifier use [42, 50–60], and strengthening the parents’ ability and confidence in soothing the baby [10, 43, 61]. We recommend that these strategies get tested using controlled study designs [8] and consider potential side effects such as the risk of SIDS [62] and the possibility that fussier babies would become more stressed if they do not receive a pacifier; before getting tested in large scale intervention study designs. However, these potential side effects need to be balanced against the potentially strong benefits that may result from improved breastfeeding outcomes resulting from reducing pacifier use as EBF has been found to be protective against SIDS and subsequent child psychosocial and emotional behavioral problems [63, 64].
Our study did not include populations living in rural areas, limiting the generalizability of our findings to rural areas. Nevertheless, our findings may be generalized to countries with a similarly high proportion of urban populations as Brazil including the rest of Latin America, and many European and Asian countries. Findings are also relevant for countries with a similar proportion or higher of pacifier use such as the one found in our study, including Italy [65], Denmark [66], Switzerland [28] and China [67]. Another limitation is the fact that data on age of introduction and intensity of pacifier use as well psychosocial factors that may influence the breastfeeding process including infant’s behavior (e.g., temperament and the mother’s breastfeeding intentions) were not collected. Due to its cross-sectional nature we cannot establish the temporal sequence of events between pacifier use and breastfeeding outcomes, thus reverse causality cannot be ruled out. In spite of these limitations, the fact that our findings are based on two national surveys that are representative of urban samples in a large country like Brazil and that both the regression analyses and the attributable potential impact fraction point to the same conclusions make our study a unique contribution to the literature.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the knowledge about the attributable potential impact fraction of the decrease in pacifier use on the increase of EBF prevalence at a population level strengthens the case for issuing recommendations that address the pros and cons of pacifier use. Formative research on mother´s preference on pacifier use and EBF are needed to make such recommendations are effectively implemented across diverse populations.
References
- 1. Victora CG, Bahl R, Barros AJ, Franca GV, Horton S, Krasevec J, et al. Breastfeeding in the 21st century: epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. Lancet. 2016;387(10017):475–90. pmid:26869575
- 2. Rollins NC, Bhandari N, Hajeebhoy N, Horton S, Lutter CK, Martines JC, et al. Why invest, and what it will take to improve breastfeeding practices? Lancet. 2016;387(10017):491–504. pmid:26869576
- 3. Venancio S, Saldiva S, Monteiro C. Secular trends in breastfeeding in Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2013;47(6):1205–8. pmid:24626558
- 4. Boccolini CS, Boccolini PMM, Monteiro FR, Venancio SI, Giugliani ERJ. Breastfeeding indicators trends in Brazil for three decades. Rev Saude Publica. 2017;51:108. pmid:29166437
- 5. Boccolini CS, Carvalho ML, Oliveira MI. Factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months of life in Brazil: a systematic review. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49.
- 6. Balogun OO, Dagvadorj A, Anigo KM, Ota E, Sasaki S. Factors influencing breastfeeding exclusivity during the first 6 months of life in developing countries: a quantitative and qualitative systematic review. Matern Child Nutr. 2015;11(4):433–51. pmid:25857205
- 7. Buccini G, Perez-Escamilla R, Venancio S. Pacifier Use and Exclusive Breastfeeding in Brazil. J Hum Lact. 2016;32(3):NP52–60. pmid:26446096
- 8. Buccini G, Perez-Escamilla R, Paulino L, Araujo C, Venancio S. Pacifier use and interruption of exclusive breastfeeding: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Matern Child Nutr. 2017;13(3).
- 9. Jaafar SH, Ho JJ, Jahanfar S, Angolkar M. Effect of restricted pacifier use in breastfeeding term infants for increasing duration of breastfeeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016(8):CD007202. pmid:27572944
- 10. Kramer MS, Barr RG, Dagenais S, Yang H, Jones P, Ciofani L, et al. Pacifier use, early weaning, and cry/fuss behavior: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;286(3):322–6. pmid:11466098
- 11. Jenik AG, Vain NE, Gorestein AN, Jacobi NE. Does the recommendation to use a pacifier influence the prevalence of breastfeeding? J Pediatr. 2009;155(3):350–4 e1. pmid:19464025
- 12. Parizoto GM, Parada CM, Venancio SI, Carvalhaes MA. Trends and patterns of exclusive breastfeeding for under-6-month-old children. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2009;85(3):201–8.
- 13. Eidelman AI, Schanler RJ, Johnston M, Landers S, Noble L, Szucs K, et al. Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Pediatrics. 2012;129(3):e827–41. pmid:22371471
- 14. Moon RY. SIDS and Other Sleep-Related Infant Deaths: Evidence Base for 2016 Updated Recommendations for a Safe Infant Sleeping Environment. Pediatrics. 2016;138(5).
- 15. Perez-Escamilla R, Martinez JL, Segura-Perez S. Impact of the Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative on breastfeeding and child health outcomes: a systematic review. Matern Child Nutr. 2016;12(3):402–17. pmid:26924775
- 16. Venancio S. A reflection on the contributions to the Project Breastfeeding and Municipalities (AMAMUNIC) for the management and health practices in the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS). BIS Boletim do Instituto de Saúde (Impresso). 2012;13:239–44.
- 17. Venancio S, Escuder M, Saldiva S, Giugliani E. Breastfeeding practice in the Brazilian capital cities and the Federal District: current status and advances. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2010;86(4):317–24.
- 18.
Organization WH. Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices: part 1: definitions: conclusions of a consensus meeting held 6–8 November 2007 in Washington DC, USA. 2008.
- 19. Venancio S, Monteiro C. Individual and contextual determinants of exclusive breast-feeding in Sao Paulo, Brazil: a multilevel analysis. Public Health Nutr. 2006;9(1):40–6. pmid:16480532
- 20. Victora CG, Huttly SR, Fuchs SC, Olinto MT. The role of conceptual frameworks in epidemiological analysis: a hierarchical approach. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26(1):224–7. pmid:9126524
- 21.
Snijders T, Bosker R. Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modelling 2nd edn Sage. London; 2012.
- 22. Morgenstern H, Bursic ES. A method for using epidemiologic data to estimate the potential impact of an intervention on the health status of a target population. J Community Health. 1982;7(4):292–309. pmid:7130448
- 23.
Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic research: principles and quantitative methods: John Wiley & Sons; 1982.
- 24. Benichou J. A review of adjusted estimators of attributable risk. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001;10(3):195–216. pmid:11446148
- 25. Lima AL, Silva AC, Konno SC, Conde WL, Benicio MH, Monteiro CA. Causes of the accelerated decline in child undernutrition in Northeastern Brazil (1986-1996-2006). Rev Saude Publica. 2010;44(1):17–27. pmid:20140325
- 26. Nelson EA, Yu LM, Williams S. International Child Care Practices study: breastfeeding and pacifier use. J Hum Lact. 2005;21(3):289–95. pmid:16115805
- 27. Lutter CK, Morrow AL. Protection, promotion, and support and global trends in breastfeeding. Adv Nutr. 2013;4(2):213–9. pmid:23493537
- 28. Merten S, Dratva J, Ackermann-Liebrich U. Do baby-friendly hospitals influence breastfeeding duration on a national level? Pediatrics. 2005;116(5):e702–8. pmid:16263985
- 29. Rea MF. A review of breastfeeding in Brazil and how the country has reached ten months' breastfeeding duration. Cad Saude Publica. 2003;19 Suppl 1:S37–45.
- 30. Haroon S, Das JK, Salam RA, Imdad A, Bhutta ZA. Breastfeeding promotion interventions and breastfeeding practices: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13 Suppl 3:S20.
- 31. Sinha B, Chowdhury R, Sankar MJ, Martines J, Taneja S, Mazumder S, et al. Interventions to improve breastfeeding outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Paediatr. 2015;104(467):114–34. pmid:26183031
- 32. Lumbiganon P, Martis R, Laopaiboon M, Festin MR, Ho JJ, Hakimi M. Antenatal breastfeeding education for increasing breastfeeding duration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;12:CD006425. pmid:27922724
- 33. Rose G. Sick individuals and sick populations. 1985. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(10):990–6. pmid:11693983
- 34. Feldens CA, Ardenghi TM, Cruz LN, Scalco GP, Vitolo MR. Advising mothers about breastfeeding and weaning reduced pacifier use in the first year of life: a randomized trial. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013;41(4):317–26. pmid:23240927
- 35. Vogel AM, Hutchison BL, Mitchell EA. The impact of pacifier use on breastfeeding: a prospective cohort study. J Paediatr Child Health. 2001;37(1):58–63. pmid:11168872
- 36. Howard CR, Howard FM, Lanphear B, deBlieck EA, Eberly S, Lawrence RA. The effects of early pacifier use on breastfeeding duration. Pediatrics. 1999;103(3):E33. pmid:10049989
- 37. Howard CR, Howard FM, Lanphear B, Eberly S, deBlieck EA, Oakes D, et al. Randomized clinical trial of pacifier use and bottle-feeding or cupfeeding and their effect on breastfeeding. Pediatrics. 2003;111(3):511–8. pmid:12612229
- 38. Buccini G, Benicio M, Venancio S. Determinants of using pacifier and bottle feeding. Rev Saude Publica. 2014;48(4):571–82. pmid:25210816
- 39. Brasileiro AA, Ambrosano GM, Marba ST, Possobon Rde F. Breastfeeding among children of women workers. Rev Saude Publica. 2012;46(4):642–8. pmid:22832805
- 40. Dias de Oliveira L, Justo Giugliani ER, Cordova do Espirito Santo L, Meirelles Nunes L. Counselling sessions increased duration of exclusive breastfeeding: a randomized clinical trial with adolescent mothers and grandmothers. Nutr J. 2014;13:73. pmid:25033743
- 41. Sipsma HL, Kornfeind K, Kair LR. Pacifiers and Exclusive Breastfeeding: Does Risk for Postpartum Depression Modify the Association? Journal of Human Lactation. 2017;33(4):692–700. pmid:28841401
- 42. Lubbe W, ten Ham-Baloyi W. When is the use of pacifiers justifiable in the baby-friendly hospital initiative context? A clinician’s guide. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2017;17(1):130. pmid:28449646
- 43. JAMA. Pacifiers and Breastfeeding. PATIENT PAGE. JAMA. 2001;286(3).
- 44. Chapman DJ, Morel K, Anderson AK, Damio G, Perez-Escamilla R. Breastfeeding peer counseling: from efficacy through scale-up. J Hum Lact. 2010;26(3):314–26. pmid:20715336
- 45. Haider R, Saha KK. Breastfeeding and infant growth outcomes in the context of intensive peer counselling support in two communities in Bangladesh. International Breastfeeding Journal. 2016;11(1):18.
- 46. Victora CG, Behague DP, Barros FC, Olinto MT, Weiderpass E. Pacifier use and short breastfeeding duration: cause, consequence, or coincidence? Pediatrics. 1997;99(3):445–53. pmid:9041303
- 47. Batista CLC, Ribeiro VS, Nascimento MdDSB, Rodrigues VP. Association between pacifier use and bottle-feeding and unfavorable behaviors during breastfeeding. Jornal de Pediatria. 2017. pmid:29136496
- 48. Huang YY, Lee JT, Gau ML, Huang CM. The study of pacifier use in relation to infant sucking, maternal perception of milk supply and breastfeeding duration. Macau Journal of Nursing. 2011;10(2).
- 49. Sertorio SC, Silva IA. The symbolic and utilitarian facets of pacifiers according to mothers. Rev Saude Publica. 2005;39(2):156–62. pmid:15895132
- 50. Silveira LM, Prade LS, Ruedell AM, Haeffner LS, Weinmann AR. Influence of breastfeeding on children's oral skills. Rev Saude Publica. 2013;47(1):37–43. pmid:23703128
- 51. North K, Fleming P, Golding J. Pacifier use and morbidity in the first six months of life. Pediatrics. 1999;103(3):E34. pmid:10049990
- 52. Niemela M, Pihakari O, Pokka T, Uhari M. Pacifier as a risk factor for acute otitis media: A randomized, controlled trial of parental counseling. Pediatrics. 2000;106(3):483–8. pmid:10969091
- 53. Rovers MM, Numans ME, Langenbach E, Grobbee DE, Verheij TJ, Schilder AG. Is pacifier use a risk factor for acute otitis media? A dynamic cohort study. Fam Pract. 2008;25(4):233–6. pmid:18562333
- 54. Shotts LL, McDaniel DM, Neeley RA. The Impact of Prolonged Pacifier Use on Speech Articulation: A Preliminary Investigation. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science & Disorders. 2008;35.
- 55. Warren JJ, Bishara SE. Duration of nutritive and nonnutritive sucking behaviors and their effects on the dental arches in the primary dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;121(4):347–56. pmid:11997758
- 56. Peres KG, Barros AJ, Peres MA, Victora CG. Effects of breastfeeding and sucking habits on malocclusion in a birth cohort study. Rev Saude Publica. 2007;41(3):343–50. pmid:17515986
- 57. Lucas A, Morley R. Breastfeeding, dummy use, and adult intelligence. Lancet. 1996;347(9017):1765; author reply -6. pmid:8656923
- 58. Ferreira HR, Rosa EF, Antunes JL, Duarte DA, Imparato JC, Pannuti CM, et al. Prolonged pacifier use during infancy and smoking initiation in adolescence: evidence from a historical cohort study. Eur Addict Res. 2015;21(1):33–8. pmid:25358513
- 59. Arenz S, Ruckerl R, Koletzko B, von Kries R. Breast-feeding and childhood obesity—a systematic review. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004;28(10):1247–56. pmid:15314625
- 60. Hohman EE, Savage JS, Birch LL, Beiler JS, Paul IM. Pacifier Use and Early Life Weight Outcomes in the Intervention Nurses Start Infants Growing on Healthy Trajectories Study. Child Obes. 2017.
- 61. Buccini G, Sanches M, Nogueira-Martins M, Bonamigo A. Basic care follow-up for underweight newborns from the perspective of Family Health Teams. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Materno Infantil. 2011;11(3):239–47.
- 62. Psaila K, Foster JP, Pulbrook N, Jeffery HE. Infant pacifiers for reduction in risk of sudden infant death syndrome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017(4).
- 63. Hauck FR, Thompson JM, Tanabe KO, Moon RY, Vennemann MM. Breastfeeding and reduced risk of sudden infant death syndrome: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):103–10. pmid:21669892
- 64. Thompson JMD, Tanabe K, Moon RY, Mitchell EA, McGarvey C, Tappin D, et al. Duration of Breastfeeding and Risk of SIDS: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2017;140(5).
- 65. Lindau JF, Mastroeni S, Gaddini A, Di Lallo D, Nastro PF, Patanè M, et al. Determinants of exclusive breastfeeding cessation: identifying an “at risk population” for special support. European Journal of Pediatrics. 2015;174(4):533–40. pmid:25308961
- 66. Kronborg H, Vaeth M. How are effective breastfeeding technique and pacifier use related to breastfeeding problems and breastfeeding duration? Birth. 2009;36(1):34–42. pmid:19278381
- 67. Xu F, Binns C, Zheng S, Wang Y, Zhao Y, Lee A. Determinants of exclusive breastfeeding duration in Xinjiang, PR China. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2007;16(2):316–21. pmid:17468089