Background During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations. Objectives The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding prior to infant formula introduction, 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants, and 5) feeding a higher intensity of human milk by bottle versus breast with food allergies, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and asthma. Methods The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published between January 1980 and March 2016, dual-screened the results according to predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed the risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence. Results The systematic reviews numbered 1–5 above included 44, 35, 1, 0, and 0 articles, respectively. Moderate, mostly observational, evidence suggests that 1) never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with higher risk of childhood asthma, and 2) among children and adolescents who were fed human milk as infants, shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding are associated with higher risk of asthma. Limited evidence does not suggest associations between 1) never versus ever being fed human milk and atopic dermatitis in childhood or 2) the duration of any human milk feeding and allergic rhinitis and atopic dermatitis in childhood. Conclusions Moderate evidence suggests that feeding human milk for short durations or not at all is associated with higher childhood asthma risk. Evidence on food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis is limited.

Background During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations. Objectives The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding, and 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in offspring. Methods The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published January 1980–March 2016, dual-screened the results according to predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed the risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence. Results The 4 systematic reviews included 21, 37, 18, and 1 articles, respectively. Observational evidence suggests that never versus ever feeding human milk (limited evidence) and shorter versus longer durations of any (moderate evidence) and exclusive (limited evidence) human milk feeding are associated with higher type 1 diabetes risk. Insufficient evidence examined type 2 diabetes. Limited evidence suggests that the durations of any and exclusive human milk feeding are not associated with intermediate outcomes (e.g., fasting glucose, insulin resistance) during childhood. Conclusions Limited to moderate evidence suggests that feeding less or no human milk is associated with higher risk of type 1 diabetes in offspring. Limited evidence suggests no associations between the durations of any and exclusive human milk feeding and intermediate diabetes outcomes in children. Additional research is needed on infant milk-feeding practices and type 2 diabetes and intermediate outcomes in US populations, which may have distinct metabolic risk.

The USDA's Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review (NESR) team specializes in conducting systematic reviews (SRs) to inform federal nutrition policy and programs. The NESR's dedicated staff collaborate with leading scientists to answer important food- and nutrition-related public health questions by objectively reviewing, evaluating, and synthesizing research using state-of-the-art methodology. NESR uses a rigorous, protocol-driven methodology that is designed to minimize bias; to ensure availability of SRs that are relevant, timely, and high quality; and to ensure transparency and reproducibility of findings. This article describes the methods used by NESR to conduct a series of SRs on diet and health in infants, toddlers, and women who are pregnant as part of the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project.

Patients with chronic illness are often stigmatized, which can lead to distress and poorer health. To address these problems, researchers must be able to effectively measure disease stigma. In line with Weiner's attribution theory (Weiner, 1985), we developed the Measure of Disease-Related Stigma (MDRS) to assess the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components of enacted disease stigma. In each of 3 studies, participants read about a hypothetical patient who developed a condition through controllable, uncontrollable, or unknown means. In Study 1, participants rated a hypothetical HIV patient using a pool of 81 items that we wrote or adapted from past studies. This pool was reduced to a 28-item scale following psychometric analyses. The MDRS subscales that assess the cognitive and emotional components were reliable in 2 other disease contexts-lung cancer (Study 2) and anorexia nervosa (Study 3). Using this scale, participants reported greater stigma of a patient described as having control over disease onset. In addition, in all studies, the theorized mediation model of cognitive attribution predicting behavioral intentions through emotions was significant, supporting the construct validity of the scale. The MDRS is a reliable measure that improves the measurement of disease stigma.

Background During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and US Department of Health and Human Services initiated an evidence review on diet and health in these populations. Objective The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relationships of never versus ever feeding human milk, shorter versus longer durations of any and exclusive human milk feeding, and feeding a lower versus a higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants with diagnosed celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methods The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team (formerly called the Nutrition Evidence Library) conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published January, 1980 to March, 2016, dual-screened the results using predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence. Results We included 9 celiac disease and 17 IBD articles. Limited case-control evidence suggests never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with higher risk of celiac disease, but concerns about reverse causality precluded a conclusion about the relationship of shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding with celiac disease. Evidence examining never versus ever feeding human milk and IBD was inconclusive, and limited, but consistent, case-control evidence suggests that, among infants fed human milk, shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding are associated with higher risk of IBD. For both outcomes, evidence examining the duration of exclusive human milk feeding was scant and no articles examined the intensity of human milk fed to mixed-fed infants. Conclusion Limited case-control evidence suggests that feeding human milk for short durations or not at all associates with higher risk of diagnosed IBD and celiac disease, respectively. The small number of studies and concern about reverse causality and recall bias prevent stronger conclusions.