Premium
Impact of the Lactation Advice Through Texting Can Help (LATCH) Randomized Controlled Trial
Author(s) -
MartinezBrockman Josefa L.,
Harari Nurit,
SeguraPerez Sofia,
Goeschel Lori,
PerezEscamilla Rafael
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.31.1_supplement.457.7
Subject(s) - breastfeeding , medicine , randomized controlled trial , overweight , mhealth , breastfeeding promotion , intervention (counseling) , family medicine , breast milk , peer support , psychological intervention , demography , nursing , pediatrics , obesity , biochemistry , chemistry , surgery , sociology
In the U.S. low income women lack breastfeeding education and support. LATCH was a multi‐site single‐blind randomized controlled trial designed to test the effectiveness of a two‐way text messaging intervention encouraging exclusive breastfeeding among low‐income women enrolled in breastfeeding peer counseling programs in four WIC clinics. LATCH combined in‐person prenatal and post‐partum (pp) breastfeeding education and support (breastfeeding peer counseling) with mHealth technology based on behavior change evidence‐based prenatal, perinatal and postnatal text messaging. The purpose of LATCH was to determine whether the two‐way interactive SMS intervention: (1) improved the time‐to‐contact between participants and their breastfeeding peer counselors; and (2) had an impact upon exclusive breastfeeding rates at two weeks pp. At baseline (N = 174) participants ranged in age from 18 to 42 and were on average 26.8 (SD 5.6) years old. Participants were on average 23.3 weeks gestation, 152.4 (SD 43.7) pounds, and had an average BMI in the overweight range (28.0 kg/m 2 ). Nearly three‐quarters of the sample self‐identified as Hispanic, 71.8% were single – never married, 69.4% were living with their partner, and 43.0% had graduated from high school or obtained their GED. Participants also planned to provide their child with any breast milk for an average of 9.3 (SD 5.5) months, exclusively breastfeed for an average of 5.1 (SD 4.9) months, and partially breastfeed for an average of 4.1 (SD 4.8) months. The follow‐up rate at two weeks pp was 73.0% (127/174). LATCH had a significant impact on facilitating early contact between participants and their peer counselors. Almost sixty percent (58.7%) of women in the intervention group contacted their BFPC either immediately or within the first 48 hours after the baby was born, compared to 34.6% in the control group (p = 0.018). This finding was seen across study sites, although the within clinic differences were not always statistically significant due to limited statistical power for the within site comparisons. At two weeks pp the effect of LATCH was in the expected direction but not statistically significant: 50.7% of women in the intervention group were exclusively breastfeeding versus 44.6% in the control group (p = 0.497). Effect modification analyses showed large effect size differences in exclusive breastfeeding at two weeks pp as a function of study site, level of maternal education, income, ethnicity, English speaking, planned breastfeeding for > 6 months, and pre‐pregnancy BMI. LATCH improved exclusive breastfeeding at two weeks pp among women who were more motivated to breastfeed, spoke English and somewhat socio‐economically better off. By contrast it had no impact in exclusive breastfeeding at two weeks among women who spoke Spanish or who were more socio‐economically vulnerable and less motivated to breastfeed. Our process evaluation findings indicate that is key for WIC clinics to have adequate IBCLC/PC coverage to be able to properly meet the demand for their services created by LATCH. Support or Funding Information This project has been funded with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service through grant WIC NEI‐12‐TX to Baylor College of Medicine to Dr. Rafael Pérez‐Escamilla at Yale University. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.