Data on Reasons for No or Short Breastfeeding
Are They Reliable and Do They Help Us Understand Infant Feeding Behaviour?
Download
Download eBook for Free
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 2.5 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
This paper uses unique data from the 1976-77 and 1988-89 Malaysian Family Life Surveys (MFLSs) to address two questions: 1) Are the reported reasons for not initiating breastfeeding or for stopping breastfeeding reliable based on indices of agreement of responses between the two surveys and/or conventional multivariate analyses of overall versus reason-specific breastfeeding duration? 2) What do we gain by separating analyses of age-specific breastfeeding cessation by reported reasons? The analyses are based on responses of mothers to questions about the duration of breastfeeding and why they never initiated or stopped breastfeeding. The authors investigate the reliability of data on reasons for no or short breastfeeding by comparing reports 12 years apart (1976 and 1988) about the reason why a particular child did not breastfeed or stopped breastfeeding. The authors find that the reported reasons for no/short breastfeeding are quite reliable in general, and that the data on reason-specific breastfeeding practices are indeed informative in verifying hypotheses about the influences on breastfeeding patterns. In both surveys, no/insufficient milk is the most frequently given reason for no or short breastfeeding. The covariates considered here that significantly affect whether the child is breastfed and the duration of breastfeeding (sanitation and water facilities, mother's education, employment, ethnicity, place of residence, child's birthweight and birth cohort), also affect the reported reason why the child was not breastfed or stopped breastfeeding.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Draft series. The unrestricted draft was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1993 to 2003 that represented preliminary or prepublication versions of other more formal RAND products for distribution to appropriate external audiences. The draft could be considered similar to an academic discussion paper. Although unrestricted drafts had been approved for circulation, they were not usually formally edited or peer reviewed.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.