reproductive health program planning in public health: what's the evidence?
DESCRIPTION
Presented as part of a Canadian Institutes of Health funded Meetings, Planning & Dissemination grant (1 of 4 webinars). Recorded November 3, 2011.TRANSCRIPT
Welcome! This webinar has been made possible with support from the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Reproductive Health Program Planning:
What’s the evidence? You will be placed on hold until the webinar begins.
The webinar will begin shortly, please remain on the line.
Maureen Dobbins Scientific Director Tel: 905 525-9140 ext 22481 E-mail: [email protected]
Kara DeCorby Administrative Director Tel: (905) 525-9140 ext. 20461 E-mail: [email protected]
Lori Greco Knowledge Broker
Daiva Tirilis Research Coordinator Tel: (905) 525-9140 ext. 20460 E-mail: [email protected]
Lyndsey McRae Research Assistant
Robyn Traynor Research Coordinator
The Health Evidence Team
Heather Husson Project Manager
What is www.health-evidence.ca?
Evidence
Decision Making
inform
Why use www.health-evidence.ca?
1. Saves you time
2. Relevant & current evidence
3. Transparent process
4. Supports for EIDM available
5. Easy to use
Questions?
Meetings, Planning & Dissemination Project
CIHR-Funded Reviews Kramer, M.S., & Kakuma, R. (2002). Optimal duration
of exclusive breastfeeding. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,2002 (Issue 1), Art. No. CD003517. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003517.
Kramer, M.S., Kakuma, R. (2003). Energy and protein intake in pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,2003 (Issue 4), Art. No.: CD000032. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000032.
Summary Statement: Kramer (2002)
Overall Considerations
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
Interpreting the Evidence
Growth among EBF infants for 6 months vs. EBF for 3-4 months and MBF thereafter through 6 months
What’s the evidence? Implications for practice & policy
Weight Gain (4 studies) • Weight gain at 3-8 months was significantly higher in
MBF compared to EBF infants (WMD – 12.45, 95% CI -23.46 to -1.44 g/mo).
Weight for age (2 studies)
• EBF infants had significantly lower scores for weight for age at six months (WMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.02), nine months (WMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.02), and 12 months (WMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.01) compared to MBF infants.
• Public health activities should acknowledge evidence indicating that MBF infants gain slightly more weight than EBF infants at 3-12 months, although there are no differences in weight gain at any other time points.
Weight Gain Weight gain at 3-8 months was significantly higher in MBF compared
to EBF infants (WMD – 12.45, 95% CI -23.46 to -1.44 g/mo).
Weight Gain No impact for EBF vs. MBF infants on weight gain at 8-12 months.
Interpreting the Evidence
Morbidity and mortality among infants EBF for 6 months vs. EBF for 3-4 months and MBF thereafter through 6 months
What’s the evidence? Implications for practice & policy
Gastrointestinal infections (1 study)
• EBF infants were 33% less likely to have GI infection in the first 12 months compared to MBF infants (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.97).
• There was no reduction in risk of hospitalization
• Public health messages and programs should indicate that infants who are EBF are less likely to have gastrointestinal infections compared to MBF infants
Gastrointestinal Infections • EBF infants were 33% less likely to have GI infection in the first 12
months compared to MBF infants (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.97).
Interpreting the Evidence
Morbidity and mortality among infants EBF for 6 months vs. EBF for 3-4 months and MBF thereafter through 6 months
What’s the evidence? Implications for practice & policy
Acute otitis media (ear infections) (2 studies)
• MBF infants were 28% more likely to have one or more episodes of otitis media compared to EBF infants (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.57).
• Public health messages and programs should indicate that infants who are EBF are less likely to have otitis media compared to MBF infants;
Acute Otitis Media (ear infection)
• MBF infants were 28% more likely to have one or more episodes of otitis media compared to EBF infants (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.57).
Overall Considerations
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
Questions?
Summary Statement: Kramer (2003)
Overall Considerations
Considerations for Public Health Practice Conclusions from Health Evidence General Implications
This well done review is based on low quality studies. Balanced energy/protein supplementation • improves fetal growth • may reduce the risk of fetal and neonatal
death • equally likely to have a very minimal or
quite large impact on preterm birth • has no impact on gestational diabetes,
preeclampsia, and growth and development • may result in possible harms (e.g. reduced
fetal growth) *Note: The results presented are our own interpretation for increasing energy intake.
Public health programs should include: • nutritional advice to women (but not as a
sole strategy) • encourage balanced energy/protein
supplements Public health programs should not encourage: • isocaloric protein supplements for pregnant
women • high protein supplements for pregnant
women • energy/protein restriction for overweight
pregnant women The findings should be used cautiously given the low quality of the evidence.
Interpreting the Evidence
Nutritional advice to increase energy and protein intake
What’s the evidence? Implications for practice & policy
• Effective in reducing the risk of preterm birth (by 54% with the true risk reduced from 2-79%).
• Public health organizations should not include nutritional advice as a sole intervention.
• Public health messaging should emphasize that increased energy and protein intake is associated with a decreased risk of preterm birth.
Preterm birth • Effective in reducing the risk of preterm birth (by 54% with the true
risk reduced from 2-79%).
Interpreting the Evidence
High protein supplementation
What’s the evidence? Implications for practice & policy
• Increased risk of small for gestational age (by 58% with the true risk reduced from 3-141%).
• No impact on all other outcome
• Public health programs should not promote or provide high protein supplementation as it has no impact on most maternal, fetal, and infant health outcomes and may, in fact, have adverse outcomes.
Small-for-gestational Age • Increased risk of small for gestational age (by 58% with the true risk
reduced from 3-141%).
Interpreting the Evidence
Energy/protein restriction in women with overweight or high weight gain
What’s the evidence? Implications for practice & policy
• Resulted in small head circumference at birth (by 1cm with a range from 0.14 cm to 1.86 cm smaller).
• Public health programs should not include energy/protein restriction as a means of improving maternal, fetal, or infant health outcomes, since energy/protein restriction is not likely to be beneficial for maternal or infant health and may lead to smaller head circumference among infants.
Head Circumference • Resulted in small head circumference at birth (by 1cm with a range
from 0.14 cm to 1.86 cm smaller).
Overall Considerations
Considerations for Public Health Practice Conclusions from Health Evidence General Implications
This well done review is based on low quality studies. Balanced energy/protein supplementation • improves fetal growth • may reduce the risk of fetal and neonatal
death • equally likely to have a very minimal or
quite large impact on preterm birth • has no impact on gestational diabetes,
preeclampsia, and growth and development • may result in possible harms (e.g. reduced
fetal growth)
Public health programs should include: • nutritional advice to women (but not as a
sole strategy) • encourage balanced energy/protein
supplements Public health programs should not encourage: • isocaloric protein supplements for pregnant
women • high protein supplements for pregnant
women • energy/protein restriction for overweight
pregnant women The findings should be used cautiously given the low quality of the evidence.
Questions?
Discussion Forum Please continue to discuss this topic and other
topics on our discussion forum. www.health-evidence.ca/forum/
Login with your health-evidence username and password or register if you aren’t a member yet.
Join us for a LIVE on Monday, November 7 at 1:00 pm EST to have your questions answered in real time!
Evaluation Please check your emails for the evaluation
link. If you do not receive one, e-mail Jennifer McGugan at [email protected]
Thank you for your participation!