Background Early breast milk expression, prolonged skin-to-skin contact, rooming-in, use of test-weighing and minimizing use of pacifiers are positively associated with exclusive breastfeeding of preterm infants, whereas use of nipple shields is negatively associated. Aim To test whether a training program for neonatal nurses with a focus on these six breastfeeding-supportive clinical practices affects the rate of preterm infants exclusively breastfed at discharge to home, the postmenstrual age at establishment of exclusive breastfeeding, and maternal self-reported use of the practice in the neonatal intensive care unit, the. Methods A quasi-experimental multi-centre intervention study from 2016–2019 including a control group of 420 preterm mother-infant dyads, an intervention with a training program for neonatal nurses and implementation of weekly breastfeeding meetings for neonatal nurses, and an intervention group of 494 preterm mother-infant dyads. Results Significantly more preterm infants in the intervention group were exclusively breastfed at discharge to home (66.6%) than in the control group (58.1%) p = 0.008. There was no significant difference in postmenstrual age at establishment of exclusive breastfeeding between control and intervention group (37.5 vs.37.8 weeks, p = 0.073). Compared to the control group the number of infants continuing daily skin-to-skin contact after incubator care increased (83.2% vs. 88.3%, p = 0.035), infants using a nipple shield decreased (61.8% vs. 54.2%, p = 0.029), and the number of mothers initiating breast milk expression before six hours post-partum increased (32.6% vs. 42.4%, p = 0.007). There was a significant correlation between percentage of neonatal nurses participating in the breastfeeding training program and changes in exclusive breastfeeding rates (Pearson Correlation 0.638, p = 0.047). Conclusion Exclusive breastfeeding rates in preterm infants and maternal self-reported use of breastfeeding-supportive practices increased by training neonatal nurses in the six clinical practices. It is important to include all nurses in the breastfeeding training program to ensure positive effect on exclusive breastfeeding rates.

Purpose The study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the English version of the HCAT to produce a Danish HCAT version and to test the Danish version’s reliability. Methods We used best-practice guidelines for linguistic translations and cultural adaptations. For cross-cultural adaptation, we conducted forward and back translation followed by expert committee review. Subsequently, two researchers assessed 140 complaint cases to test intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Danish HCAT version. We used descriptive statistics for distributions and tested for differences between English and Danish editions Intra- and inter-rater reliability used Gwet’s AC1 statistics, applying quadratic weights to assign more weight to large discrepancies. Results The back translations showed both semantic and conceptual differences, and the expert committee thus discussed the meaning of the wording in the HCAT guide and coding form to ensure that the Danish version would be conceptually similar to the English version but also culturally appropriate for Danish settings. There was discussion about how to use the coding form to graduate problem severity, and this led to some altered wording. Pilot testing revealed the need for two new categories of “hospital-acquired infection” and “involvement of patients’ relatives”. The problem categories of the HCAT-DK showed “substantial” intra- and inter-rater reliability (0.79, and 0.79 to 0.85). In addition, there was a “substantial” agreement (0.70 to 0.73) between the original HCAT and the HCAT-DK version. Conclusion The study translated and cross-culturally adapted the English HCAT version to produce a Danish HCAT version. Cultural and conceptual differences led to adjustments and to addition of two extra items in the HCAT-DK. The Danish version showed “substantial” intra- and inter-rater reliability and is considered suitable for coding complaint and compensation cases in Danish health care.

Objective To determine levels of objectively measured physical activity (PA) and the proportion of adults with multimorbidity that adheres to PA guidelines. Methods All studies, where PA was measured at baseline using an activity monitor in an adult (≥18 years) multimorbid (≥80% of the population had ≥2 chronic conditions) population. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, opengrey.eu and google.com from inception up until 18th of January 2022. Risk of bias was assessed with a modified version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. A random-effects meta-analyses was performed to estimate daily minutes of sedentary behavior (SB), light PA (LPA), moderate PA (MPA), moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) and steps. Proportions adhering to PA guidelines was narratively synthesized. Certainty of evidence was determined using The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results Fifteen studies (2,172 participants) were included. The most frequent combination of conditions were type 2 diabetes and hypertension (six studies). Participants spent a daily average of 500.5 (95% CI: 407.1 to 593.9) minutes in SB, 325.6 (95% CI: 246.4 to 404.7 minutes in LPA and 32.7 (95% CI: 20.2 to 45.3) minutes in MVPA. The mean daily number of steps was 5,145 (95% CI: 4264 to 6026) for people in free-living conditions. The proportion adhering to PA guidelines ranged widely (7.4% to 43%). All studies were rated as at high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence was very low. Conclusions PA levels and adherence varied from low to above guideline recommended levels for adults with chronic conditions, depending on PA intensity. The very low certainty of evidence calls for high quality studies focusing on detailed descriptions of PA behavior in people with multimorbidity. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020172456.

Background and aimPrevalence and motives for nipple shield use are not well studied in preterm infants and recommendations of nipple shield use in preterm infants are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of nipple shield use, explore the motives for nipple shield use and elucidate the association with exclusive breastfeeding in preterm infants.MethodsThe study was part of a prospective survey of a Danish national cohort of preterm infants based on questionnaires answered by the 1221 mothers of 1488 preterm infants with gestational age of 24–36 weeks. Data on nipple shield use was available for 1407 infants.ResultsNipple shields were used by 54% of the mother-infant dyads for many different motives and was more often related to breastfeeding problems associated with the infant than with the mother. The most common motive for nipple shield use was “infant slipped the nipple” (52%). The lower the gestational age, the more frequently nipple shields were used for motives related to the infant. For those using a nipple shield, only the motive “infant fell asleep at the breast” was associated with a higher risk of not breastfeeding exclusively at discharge (OR 1.90 (95% CI 1.15; 3.13), p = 0.012), and “breast too engorged” with a lower risk of not breastfeeding exclusively (OR 0.32 (0.16; 0.63), p = 0.001), but overall nipple shield use was associated with failure of exclusive breastfeeding.ConclusionThe present study does not give justifiable motives for nipple shield use, except for “breast too engorged”. Nipple shields should not be recommended for infants falling asleep at the breast, instead, staff and mothers should be patient, allowing the dyad time skin-to-skin. The results indicate that the use of a nipple shield does not promote exclusive breastfeeding in preterm infants.