Talk:Breastfeeding promotion

Revision of article for an assignment

Hi all, I am a student at Rice University and am planning to revise the this article for a class assignment. I posted something similar on the main Breastfeeding page a couple weeks ago and neglected to post here as there was very little activity, but I'm excited to see that this article has been added to a couple WikiProjects so I wanted to share what my plans were. Some of the changes I plan to make are adding a section at the beginning detailing different promotion techniques (such as peer support, lactation consultants, and social marketing), the cultural and social determinants of breastfeeding promotion, reorganizing the article so that worldwide initiatives (Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, La Leche League, WHO recommendations, etc) are billed as such and not just mentioned in one country's subsection, and focusing on breastfeeding promotion in a diverse group of countries. A few of these sections will be added to the article within the next couple hours, so please let me know if there is anything that I should fix or change once I add these sections. An outline of my planned revisions can be found here. I'd love to hear feedback! Thanks, Ktpost68 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A little background would be good (as noted below). This is a good read that may be helpful. [1] Gandydancer (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I've since added a section on "Significance of breastfeeding promotion in the United States" - I thought it better to be overly specific than to generalize about breastfeeding promotion worldwide, but hopefully this background section can engender more content, either from me or from other users. I've also added a few other sections ("Social marketing and media", "Cuba", and "Bangladesh"). While my assignment is formally over, please let me know if you have other feedback as I'd still love to hear it and possibly add more to this article in the future! Ktpost68 (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

SOCI 280 Peer Review Comments

The following comments are posted as part of a Peer Review assignment for the Rice University "Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities" class noted in the above banner.

Great progress so far on this article. Here are some suggestions I would make for further improvement here:

• A section on the importance of breastfeeding, or at least a quick recap of the health benefits or the rationale for promoting breastfeeding, would be helpful. This inclusion would give further credibility to the rest of the article, because it would help establish why breastfeeding matters and transition effectively into the grounds for (and nature of) its promotion worldwide.
• There are some sections where citations appear to be missing, such as under the sections on prenatal care, lactation consultants, and the controversy surrounding infant formula marketing packs in hospitals. I would recommend providing sources for any claims made here; otherwise, it could be construed as an opinion statement or a non-neutral standpoint.

On further thought, disregard this - the PDF version somehow showed fewer citations, but they are present where needed in the original article.

• Consider revising the sentence structure in parts of the article to fix the passive tone; this is not a major criticism, but it will help the article read more clearly.

I'd be happy to provide further commentary as needed. Best of luck with the remainder of this project, and congratulations on an assignment well-accomplished so far!

Amolutrankar (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Revision comments

The revisions you did to the article all look pretty good. As I mention in the worksheet, I would recommend adding in a few more citations, though after seeing the article it is much better cited than the version I was looking at. Neutrality is the biggest potential threat to the page, and you handle it well, making sure everything is presented as facts. There may be some minor wording changes you can implement to make it clear you're not saying that breastfeeding is something that should be spread but rather describing efforts that believe this. The World Breastfeeding Week section reads a little like a flier, so consider changing that. The major area that still needs more content is the 'Regions' subsection, but it's up to you whether you want to work on that section more or leave it for another editor. All in all, good work. Bwl5 (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ktpost68

Hi Ktpost68! The article is well-written and well-researched - great job! One thing I noticed was that the Cultural and social factors section talks almost exclusively about the U.S., so maybe you want to rename it Cultural and social factors in the U.S.? Let me know if you have any questions! Best of luck with the edits! Nadhika99 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I actually have decided not to do so for now; I do have a couple of sources in there that do not refer specifically to the US (and which I'd rather not remove as they are high-quality), and as far as I can tell the information about economic resources is pretty generalizable. Perhaps I could split it further into "Social factors in the U.S." and "socioeconomic impact" or something along those lines? The assignment is basically over but if you still have feedback or further suggestions I'm interested to hear! Ktpost68 (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Breastfeeding promotion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://respiratory.upenn.edu/josnr/vol3/iss2/3
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://respiratory.upenn.edu/josnr/vol3/iss2/3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925015038/http://www.akev.ru/content/view/30/68/ to http://www.akev.ru/content/view/30/68/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810044532/http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/05jun/97-905.pdf to http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/05jun/97-905.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Breastfeeding promotion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202234525/http://www.ghjournal.org/jgh-print/fall-2012-issue/from-breastfeeding-to-bottles-2/ to http://www.ghjournal.org/jgh-print/fall-2012-issue/from-breastfeeding-to-bottles-2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202230900/http://www.swndha.nshealth.ca/BCC10integratedsteps.pdf to http://www.swndha.nshealth.ca/BCC10integratedsteps.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Safety concerns section

I have removed this section from the article because we need a much stronger source to make these statements. In the first paragraph, this information comes from the opinion of only one MD, not enough for us to pronounce that "health care professionals and breastfeeding counsellors" are "overzealous". The second para uses three MDs to disagree with the WHO which clearly states:

Importance of rooming-in • Rooming-in has many benefits: - Babies sleep better and cry less. - Before birth the mothers and infant have developed a sleep/awake rhythm that would be disrupted if separated. - Breastfeeding is well established and continues longer and the baby gains weight quickly. - Feeding in response to a baby’s cues is easier when the baby is near, thus helping to develop a good milk supply. - Mothers become confident in caring for their baby. - Mothers can see that their baby is well and they are not worried that a baby crying in a nursery is their baby. - Baby is exposed to fewer infections when next to his or her mother rather than in a nursery. - It promotes bonding between mother and baby even if mother is not breastfeeding.

Section removed:

Safety concerns

Guidelines for breastfeeding promotion allow the use of formula when it is medically indicated. However, some overzealous health care professionals and breastfeeding counsellors do not adequately assess risk factors for primary lactation insufficiency (inability to produce a full supply of milk) and thus fail to recommend supplementary formula when it is necessary. Primary lactation insufficiency affects up to five percent of mothers.

Concerns have been raised about whether certain of the Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommended by the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, such as rooming-in and non-usage of pacifiers, may lead to unsafe sleep practices. Gandydancer (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

W.r.t. the second paragraph, I agree we can drop it entirely as it's a relatively insignificant point of view and only indirectly related to breastfeeding promotion. W.r.t the sourcing of the first paragraph, I think the actual source is sound. Marianne Neifert is Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Co-Founder and Member of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, and Member of the Health Advisory Council, La Leche League - she would know what she is talking about. "Overzealous" was my choice of wording and maybe not the greatest paraphrasing. This paper does say that some health care professionals and breastfeeding counsellors do not adequately assess risk factors for primary lactation insufficiency and thus fail to recommend supplementary formula when it is necessary, however the paper frames this problem as a medical competence issue far more than a breastfeeding promotion issue, so overall I agree with leaving it out. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I looked her up as well and it was my impression that she is well-known though I was not aware of the La Leche connection. I thought that the "overzealous" wording was hers, and that also changes my position a tad. But the thing is, mothers go through a lot of both self-doubt and societal doubt about what should be quite normal. One reason that I'd as soon to not include it is that I don't like just a few words of criticism that are not answered with a more full discussion of her comments. However we generally only use Reviews, etc., for longer discussions. BTW, as part of the research I just did I read the La Leche forum. Nursing was so easy for me, and my sister, and both of my daughters...it just made me cringe to see so many mothers with so many nursing problems. I felt really bad for them and can see why we really need to be giving all new mothers a lactation expert to help them through the first few weeks with their new baby. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Super power breastfeeding.ogv

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)