Kramer M S, Barr R G, Dagenais S, Yang H, Jones P, Ciofani L, Jané F
1020 Pine Ave W, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1A2.
JAMA. 2001 Jul 18;286(3):322-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.3.322.
The World Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund strongly discourage use of pacifiers because of their perceived interference with breastfeeding. Observational studies have reported a strong association between pacifier use and early weaning, but such studies are unable to determine whether the association is causal.
To test whether regular pacifier use is causally related to weaning by 3 months postpartum and to examine differences in results according to randomized intervention allocation vs observational use or nonuse of pacifiers.
Double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted from January 1998 to August 1999.
Postpartum unit of a university teaching hospital in Montreal, Quebec.
A total of 281 healthy, breastfeeding women and their healthy, term singleton infants.
Participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 counseling interventions provided by a research nurse trained in location counseling. The experimental intervention (n = 140) differed from the control (n = 141) by recommending avoidance of pacifier use and suggesting alternative ways to comfort a crying or fussing infant.
Early weaning, defined as weaning within the first 3 months, compared between groups; 24-hour infant behavior logs detailing frequency and duration of crying, fussing, and pacifier use at 4, 6, and 9 weeks.
A total of 258 mother-infant pairs (91.8%) completed follow-up. The experimental intervention increased total avoidance of pacifier use (38.6% vs 16.0% in the control group), reduced daily use (40.8% vs 55.7%), and decreased the mean number of pacifier insertions per day (0.8 vs 2.4 at 4 weeks [P<.001]; 0.8 vs 3.0 at 6 weeks [P<.001]; and 1.3 vs 3.0 at 9 weeks [P =.004]). In the analysis based on randomized intervention allocation, the experimental intervention had no discernible effect on weaning at 3 months (18.9% vs 18.3% in the experimental vs control group; relative risk [RR], 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-1.7), and no effect was observed on cry/fuss behavior (in the experimental vs control groups, respectively, total daily duration, 143 vs 151 minutes at 4 weeks [P =.49]; 128 vs 131 minutes at 6 weeks [P =.81]; and 110 vs 104 minutes at 9 weeks [P =.58]). When randomized allocation was ignored, however, we observed a strong observational association between exposure to daily pacifier use and weaning by 3 months (25.0% vs 12.9% of the exposed vs unexposed groups; RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3).
We found a strong observational association between pacifier use and early weaning. No such association was observed, however, when our data were analyzed by randomized allocation, strongly suggesting that pacifier use is a marker of breastfeeding difficulties or reduced motivation to breastfeed, rather than a true cause of early weaning.
世界卫生组织和联合国儿童基金会强烈不鼓励使用安抚奶嘴,因为它们被认为会干扰母乳喂养。观察性研究报告了使用安抚奶嘴与早期断奶之间存在密切关联,但此类研究无法确定这种关联是否具有因果关系。
测试常规使用安抚奶嘴是否与产后3个月内断奶存在因果关系,并根据随机干预分配与观察性使用或不使用安抚奶嘴来检查结果差异。
1998年1月至1999年8月进行的双盲随机对照试验。
魁北克省蒙特利尔市一所大学教学医院的产后病房。
共有281名健康的母乳喂养女性及其健康的足月单胎婴儿。
参与者被随机分配到由接受过位置咨询培训的研究护士提供的两种咨询干预措施中的一种。实验性干预组(n = 140)与对照组(n = 141)的不同之处在于建议避免使用安抚奶嘴,并提出安抚哭闹或烦躁婴儿的替代方法。
比较两组之间的早期断奶情况,早期断奶定义为在头3个月内断奶;24小时婴儿行为记录详细记录4、6和9周时哭闹、烦躁和使用安抚奶嘴的频率和持续时间。
共有258对母婴(91.8%)完成了随访。实验性干预增加了对安抚奶嘴使用的完全避免(实验组为38.6%,对照组为16.0%),减少了每日使用(40.8%对55.7%),并减少了每天安抚奶嘴插入的平均次数(4周时为0.8次对2.4次[P<.001];6周时为0.8次对3.0次[P<.001];9周时为1.3次对3.0次[P =.004])。在基于随机干预分配的分析中,实验性干预对3个月时的断奶没有明显影响(实验组为18.9%,对照组为18.3%;相对风险[RR]为1.0;95%置信区间[CI]为0.6 - 1.7),对哭闹/烦躁行为也没有影响(在实验组和对照组中,4周时每天的总持续时间分别为143分钟对151分钟[P =.49];6周时为128分钟对131分钟[P =.81];9周时为110分钟对104分钟[P =.58])。然而,当忽略随机分配时,我们观察到每日使用安抚奶嘴与3个月内断奶之间存在很强的观察性关联(暴露组与未暴露组分别为25.0%对12.9%;RR为1.9;95% CI为1.1 - 3.3)。
我们发现使用安抚奶嘴与早期断奶之间存在很强的观察性关联。然而,当我们的数据按随机分配进行分析时,未观察到这种关联,这强烈表明使用安抚奶嘴是母乳喂养困难或母乳喂养动力降低的一个标志,而不是早期断奶的真正原因。