The Effect of Breastfeeding Position on Breastfeeding Self-efficacy, Success and Postpartum Comfort

NCT05949372 · Status: UNKNOWN · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 68

Last updated 2023-07-18

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

Breast milk is a natural, unique, ideal food that best meets the nutritional needs of babies for healthy growth and development. Studies clearly demonstrate the short and long-term benefits of breast milk to the baby, mother, family, environment, economy and country with strong evidence. There are many factors that affect breastfeeding. One of these factors is breastfeeding techniques. Proper breastfeeding technique includes holding the baby well and attaching the baby to the breast correctly, and ineffective breastfeeding techniques, incorrect position and holding style cause poor breastfeeding outcomes in mothers. There are many different breastfeeding positions such as cradle position, cross cradle position, football grip position (armpit position), side-lying breastfeeding, biological breastfeeding. It is of great importance to consider in detail the superiority of these positions over each other. Reveal the advantages of different positions will help increase breastfeeding rates and long-term breastfeeding rates. The aim of this study is to reveal which position is more effective in terms of the effects of biological breastfeeding and armpit (football) breastfeeding positions on breastfeeding self-efficacy, breastfeeding success, breastfeeding duration and postpartum comfort.

The Hypotheses of the Study Hypothesis 0 (H0): There is no difference between biological breastfeeding and armpit (football) breastfeeding position on breastfeeding success, breastfeeding self-efficacy and postpartum comfort in primiparous mothers.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Breastfeeding success of primiparous mothers in the biological breastfeeding position is higher than in the armpit (football) breastfeeding position.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Breastfeeding self-efficacy of primiparous mothers in the biological breastfeeding position is higher than in the armpit (football) breastfeeding position.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Breastfeeding duration of primiparous mothers in the biological breastfeeding position is higher than in the armpit (Football) breastfeeding position.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Primiparous mothers have higher comfort in the biological breastfeeding position than in the armpit (Football) breastfeeding position.

Conditions

  • Breastfeeding

Interventions

OTHER

Giving a biological breastfeeding position

The mother is half-sitting, in the most comfortable position where she can make eye contact with her baby. The baby's head is placed on the mother's chest with her legs on the mother's stomach. With this position, gravity fixes the baby's whole body to that of its mother.

OTHER

Giving a football ( armpit) position

The mother sits upright, leaning back, and the baby's bottom and the right or left side of the mother is supported by pillows from whichever side she will breastfeed. The baby's head is placed on the breast that is breastfed and the feet are laid flat so that they pass under the armpit of the breastfed side. While the mother's hand on the breastfeeding side holds the baby's head, the other hand directs the breast towards the baby and breastfeeding is initiated.

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Sakarya University

    lead OTHER

Principal Investigators

  • Dilek Menekşe, Asist.Prof. · Sakarya University

  • Sema Aktaş, Nurse · Sakarya University

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
SINGLE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age
19 Years
Sex
FEMALE
Healthy Volunteers
Yes

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2023-07-15
Primary Completion
2024-11-15
Completion
2024-11-15

Countries

  • Turkey (Türkiye)

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT05949372 on ClinicalTrials.gov