↓ Skip to main content

Infant feeding and health-related quality of life in healthy Chinese infants: results from a prospective, observational cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Infant feeding and health-related quality of life in healthy Chinese infants: results from a prospective, observational cohort study
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0518-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas P. Hays, Meng Mao, Lan Zhang, John Ge, Robert Northington, Manjiang Yao, Sheri Volger

Abstract

Infant feeding regimens, including breastfeeding, formula-feeding, or a combination of the two, may influence infant health-related quality of life (HRQOL). However, few studies have examined this association. This prospective cohort study assessed HRQOL in relation to three parent-selected feeding regimens: exclusively breastfed (n = 136), exclusively study formula-fed (n = 140), and mixed-fed with study formula and breast milk (n = 151). Healthy Chinese infants were enrolled at their first normally scheduled well infant clinic visit at age 42 days (study day 1). Parents independently chose their infants' feeding regimens prior to recruitment into the study, with infants in the formula and mixed-fed groups already consuming an infant formula enriched with α-lactalbumin and increased sn-2 palmitate and oligofructose. The Infant and Toddler Quality of Life Questionnaire, which includes six infant-focused and three parent-focused concepts, was used to assess HRQOL at day 1 and at a follow-up visit 48 days later. Scores for each concept ranged from 0 to 100. Parent quality of life (assessed using the Mental Component Summary score of the SF-12v2 Health Survey) was included in the ANCOVA model to adjust for its potential effect on parent's perception of infant HRQOL. HRQOL concept scores were high in all three study groups at both visits (mean scores 71-95). Day 1 HRQOL scores were not significantly different between groups. At day 48, 5 of 9 HRQOL scores were not significantly different between groups. However, scores for Temperament and Moods, General Health Perceptions and Parent Impact-Time were slightly but statistically significantly lower in the formula-fed group (mean scores 75-86; all p ≤ 0.01) compared to the breastfed (78-90) and mixed-fed (77-91) groups. Day 48 Parent Impact-Emotional scores were also significantly lower by a small margin (4 points; p = 0.003) in the formula-fed group compared with the breastfed group. HRQOL was high in this population of healthy infants, with only a few small differences in HRQOL concept scores observed between breastfed, formula-fed and mixed-fed infants. These results indicate favorable physical, mental, and social well-being in these infants and parents. Assessment of infant HRQOL is therefore feasible and provides valuable insight into parental perceptions of their child's health and well-being. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01370967 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 26 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Psychology 10 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 27 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,467,278
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,671
of 2,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,515
of 364,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#29
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.