This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Web-based and Mobile Health Interventions (3349) Perinatal Education for Parents (223) Infant Feeding Education, Lactation & Breastfeeding Support (33) mHealth for Wellness, Behavior Change and Prevention (2918) Pregnancy Information, Education and Lifestyle Interventions (303) Clinical Communication, Electronic Consultation and Telehealth (614) Mobile Health and Apps for Maternal and Child Health (154) Text-messaging (SMS, WeChat etc)-Based Interventions (662)

Published on in Vol 26 (2024)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/51566, first published .
Effects of a Smartphone-Based Breastfeeding Coparenting Intervention Program on Breastfeeding-Related Outcomes in Couples During First Pregnancy: Randomized Controlled Trial

Effects of a Smartphone-Based Breastfeeding Coparenting Intervention Program on Breastfeeding-Related Outcomes in Couples During First Pregnancy: Randomized Controlled Trial

Effects of a Smartphone-Based Breastfeeding Coparenting Intervention Program on Breastfeeding-Related Outcomes in Couples During First Pregnancy: Randomized Controlled Trial

Authors of this article:

Yi-Yan Huang1 Author Orcid Image ;   Rong Wang2 Author Orcid Image ;   Wei-Peng Huang3 Author Orcid Image ;   Tian Wu1, 4 Author Orcid Image ;   Shi-Yun Wang1 Author Orcid Image ;   Sharon R. Redding5 Author Orcid Image ;   Yan-Qiong Ouyang1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    Original Paper

    1School of Nursing, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

    2Department of Nursing, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

    3Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China

    4Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan Central Hospital, Department of Obstetrics, Wuhan, China

    5Global Health of Project HOPE, Washington, MD, United States

    *these authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Yan-Qiong Ouyang, MD

    School of Nursing

    Wuhan University

    115 Donghu Rd

    Wuchang District

    Wuhan, 430072

    China

    Phone: 86 27 68759710

    Email: ouyangyq@whu.edu.cn


    Background: A low breastfeeding rate causes an increased health care burden and negative health outcomes for individuals and society. Coparenting is an essential tactic for encouraging breastfeeding when raising a child. The efficacy of the coparenting interventions in enhancing breastfeeding-related outcomes is controversial.

    Objective: This study aimed to examine the effects of coparenting interventions on exclusive breastfeeding rates, exclusive breastfeeding duration, breastfeeding knowledge, parenting sense of competence, coparenting relationships, depressive symptoms in new couples at 1 and 6 months post partum, and the BMI of infants 42 days post partum.

    Methods: This was a randomized, single-blinded controlled clinical trial. Eligible couples in late pregnancy in a hospital in central China were randomly assigned to 2 groups. While couples in the control group received general care, couples in the intervention group had access to parenting classes, a fathers’ support group, and individual counseling. Data were collected at baseline (T0), 1 month post partum (T1), and 6 months post partum (T2). Data on exclusive breastfeeding rate and exclusive breastfeeding duration were analyzed using the chi-square, Fisher exact, or Mann-Whitney U tests; coparenting relationships and the infant’s BMI were analyzed using an independent samples t test; and breastfeeding knowledge, parenting sense of competence, and depressive symptoms were analyzed using a generalized estimation equation.

    Results: A total of 96 couples were recruited, and 79 couples completed the study. The intervention group exhibited significantly higher exclusive breastfeeding rates at T1 (90% vs 65%, P=.02) and T2 (43.6% vs 22.5%, P=.02), compared with the control group. Exclusive breastfeeding duration was extended in the intervention group than in the control group at T1 (30, range 30-30 days vs 30, range 26.5-30 days; P=.01) and T2 (108, range 60-180 days vs 89, range 28-149.3 days; P<.05). The intervention group exhibited greater improvements in maternal breastfeeding knowledge (β=.07, 95% CI 0.006-0.13; P=.03) and maternal parenting sense of competence (β=5.49, 95% CI 2.09-8.87; P<.01) at T1, enhanced coparenting relationships at T1 (P<.001) and T2 (P=.02), paternal breastfeeding knowledge at T2 (β=.25, 95% CI 0.15-0.35, P<.001), paternal parenting sense of competence at T1 (β=5.35, 95% CI 2.23-8.47, P<.01), and reduced paternal depressive symptoms at T2 (β=.25, 95% CI 0.15-0.35, P<.001), and there was a rise in infants’ BMI at 42 days post partum (β=.33, 95% CI 0.01-0.64, P=.04).

    Conclusions: An evidence-based breastfeeding coparenting intervention is effective in improving exclusive breastfeeding rate, prolonging exclusive breastfeeding duration within the initial 6 months post partum, enhancing parental breastfeeding knowledge, levels of parenting sense of competence and coparenting relationship, infant’s BMI, and reducing paternal depressive symptoms.

    Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300069648; https://tinyurl.com/2p8st2p8

    J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e51566

    doi:10.2196/51566

    Keywords

    breastfeeding; co-parenting; randomized controlled; child; efficacy; depressive symptoms 


    Breastfeeding is a crucial public health issue that has shown health benefits for the mother and infant, providing optimal nutrition for infant growth, promoting immune substances that prevent respiratory infections, diarrhea, and otitis media [1,2]. Benefits to mothers include increased lactogen and oxytocin secretion, reduced risk of maternal diseases, and promoted emotional bonding with infants [3]. Exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) for infants up to 6 months of age, followed by continued breastfeeding for 2 years is recommended by the World Health Organization [4].

    However, the current global breastfeeding landscape is bleak, with only 40% of infants under 6 months are exclusively breastfed across 194 nations. In China, the EBF rate stands at 34.1%, and in the United States, it is even lower at 25.8%, falling short of the World Health Organization’s target of 50% [5,6]. Low breastfeeding rates lead to increased health care costs and negative health outcomes. The cost of not breastfeeding in the United States was US $13 billion per year in direct medical costs and US $18 billion per year in indirect costs [7]. By enhancing breastfeeding practice, it is possible to prevent the death of 820,000 children each year, of which 87% are infants under 6 months of age [8].

    The low breastfeeding rate is attributed to a lack of paternal involvement in childcare [9]. Cultural norms and traditional gender roles frequently discourage fathers from actively participating in breastfeeding. It is crucial to promote, support, and protect breastfeeding worldwide, as it embodies society’s shared responsibility [10]. There is an urgent demand for improved breastfeeding intervention programs that address the needs of both parents.

    Bich et al [11] discovered that offering breastfeeding education and counseling services to fathers in the intervention group resulted in notably higher EBF rates at 4 and 6 months compared with the control group. Similarly, Su and Ouyang [12] illustrated that coparenting, accompanied by guidance on emotional and practical support, led to significantly increased rates of exclusive breastfeeding at 4 and 6 months, along with a reduction in infant formula usage. However, contrasting findings from other studies suggest that such interventions do not necessarily lead to improved EBF rates [13-15]. Therefore, more vigorously designed studies are required to fully comprehend the possible benefits and drawbacks of incorporating fathers into coparenting methods targeted at encouraging effective breastfeeding practices.

    This randomized controlled study aimed to investigate the effects of a breastfeeding coparenting intervention program to breastfeeding-related outcomes in couples during their first pregnancy, including breastfeeding rate, breastfeeding duration, parental breastfeeding knowledge, parental parenting sense of competence, coparenting relationship, parental depressive symptoms, and infant BMI.


    Study Design and Participants

    This study was a randomized, single-blinded controlled clinical trial, including measurements of pretest at baseline (T0), posttest after intervention (1 month post partum) (T1), and at 6 months post partum (T2).

    The inclusion criteria consisted of couples (1) in the first pregnancy ≥ 28 weeks, (2) planning to breastfeed their infant, and (3) able to complete the related questionnaire independently. Exclusion criteria were couples or one of the couples (1) having or had participated in previous breastfeeding-related research, (2) who are health care workers, and (3) unable to access the internet.

    Randomization and Blinding

    Participants were couples recruited from an outpatient obstetrics department of a large hospital in central China using convenience sampling. Researchers provided a brief introduction of the study to the couples, who were then directed to a WeChat official account (a popular social platform). Informed consent was obtained, and participants were then given access to the account.

    Eligible couples were randomly allocated into either the intervention group or the control group. A randomization sequence was generated by a random service. Participants couples in either the intervention or control group were strangers, therefore they were blinded to reduce contamination bias. Researchers who compiled and analyzed the research data didn’t take part in the intervention process. The outcome evaluators were blinded as they did not know the group assignments.

    Intervention

    Based on the Breastfeeding Co-parenting Framework [16], a breastfeeding coparenting intervention program was developed through a literature review [17] and Delphi method. A total of 14 studies, conducted in 9 different countries between January 1995 and February 2022, were included. The coparenting breastfeeding interventions, including start and stop dates, duration, program components, and content were outlined. In total, 7 experts were invited to participate as consultants from April 21 to June 23, 2022. After 2 rounds of Delphi consultation involving 6 experts, the intervention program had good validity and reliability with a coefficient judgment basis of 0.93, a familiarity coefficient of 0.87, an authority coefficient of 0.90 and Kendall W of 0.62. The intervention program included a 7-session parenting course, a father’s support group and individual counseling from late pregnancy to 6 months post partum (Multimedia Appendix 1).

    Couples in the control group received generally available care. Before childbirth, regular prenatal examinations were conducted in the hospital, during which time couples were guided on maternal nutrition, weight management, and breastfeeding. After delivery, regular home visits were performed by the community nurses, who assessed the growth and development of the baby, as well as the uterus recovery status, breastfeeding condition, and pelvic floor function and provided health education. Researchers contacted these female participants by phone each month.

    In addition to the interventions administered to the control group, participants in the intervention group were requested to add the researchers to their personal WeChat accounts, join the WeChat intervention group, and engage with a WeChat public account named “Guardian of Maternal and Infant Health” (Multimedia Appendix 2). This account was developed by the research group.

    The classes were provided from late pregnancy to 4 weeks post partum, covering a total of 7 topics with a new topic. Between 28 and 37 weeks of gestation, educational sessions focusing on breastfeeding significance and techniques were provided to the intervention group participants by WeChat video on the WeChat account. From 37 weeks of gestation until delivery, participants received information on breastfeeding in specific circumstances through textual and video materials delivered by the research team, supplemented by community nurses. In addition, on the 14th day post partum, researchers and community nurses engaged in face-to-face discussions with couples, offering guidance on infant growth characteristics and distributing informational leaflets. At 4 weeks post partum, screenings for postpartum depression were conducted during personal meetings with couples by researchers and community nurses, along with the provision of resources on postnatal mental well-being, including textual, visual, and video materials. On the 42nd day post partum, intervention participants and their newborns underwent health checkups conducted by community nurses. Researchers sent reminders to participants about these classes by WeChat or phone calls.

    Besides, male participants in the intervention group were invited to join the WeChat father’s support group, providing them with a platform to freely express their feelings and concerns, which was not available to male participants in the control group. Individual counseling was also provided to the intervention group couples through direct meetings with content experts, WeChat calls or phone calls, when needed. In addition, couples could seek help through individual counseling (contact experts by WeChat or telephone call when needed). The intervention was conducted by the research team consisting of an international board-certified lactation consultant, a national second-level psychological counselor, and a postgraduate student major in maternal and child health.

    Outcomes

    Primary Outcomes

    The primary outcomes were EBF rate and duration. Exclusive breastfeeding is defined as feeding infants with breast milk only from birth, with no supplementation of any other fluids or food, except vitamin, mineral drops, or medication [18]. The EBF duration is the total time of EBF from initiation to cessation. Data on EBF rate and EBF duration were obtained by asking the question: “What is your current feeding mode (exclusive breastfeeding, mixed feeding, or exclusive formula feeding)?” and “How long have you been exclusively breastfeeding your infant (in days)?”

    Secondary Outcomes
    Breastfeeding Knowledge Questionnaire

    Designed by Su and Ouyang [12], this 18-item questionnaire asks about the benefits and skills of breastfeeding. One point is awarded for a correct answer, for a total possible score of 18, with a higher score indicating more enhanced breastfeeding knowledge. The questionnaire had a high level of internal reliability (Cronbach α=0.82) [19].

    Parenting Sense of Competence Scale

    Originally developed by Johnston to assess parenting satisfaction and efficacy [20], Ngai et al [21] translated the scale into Chinese and validated it with good internal consistency (Cronbach α=0.85) and test-retest reliability (correlation coefficient=0.87). The scale consists of 17 items, each of which adopts a 6-point Likert scale, from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 16 are inversely scored for a total possible score of the scale from 17 to 102 points. The higher the score, the higher the level of perceived competence of the parents.

    Brief Co-Parenting Relationship Scale

    Developed by Feinberg et al [22] in 2012, the Brief Co-parenting Relationship Scale measures the quality of coparenting relationships between parents when raising a child together. It is composed of 14 items and 7 subscales. The Chinese version was developed by Min Wu and Zhao [23], including 5 dimensions with 14 items. All items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale, with 3 items being reverse scored, for a total score of 0 to 84. A higher score indicates a better coparenting relationship. The split-half reliability coefficient for the total score was 0.516, and Cronbach α coefficient for the total score was 0.613.

    Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale

    Compiled by Cox and translated into Chinese by Lee et al [24], this scale measures postpartum depressive symptoms. There are 10 items, and each item is divided into 4 levels from never (0 points) to always (3 points) for a possible total score of 30 points. If the total score is greater than or equal to 9, the mother has a high risk of experiencing depression and should be referred to a health care provider for further evaluation. The Chinese version of the scale had good validity. The split-half reliability of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) was 0.74, Cronbach α was 0.78 and test-retest reliability was 0.90 [25].

    BMI of Infant at 42 Days

    BMI was calculated by weight and body length data extracted from the newborn’s community checkup.

    Both female and male participants were required to complete the questionnaire at 3 time points. At T0, questionnaires were collected by trained researchers through a paper survey face to face in an outpatient of obstetrics department. A researcher-designed questionnaire was used for data collection, including sociodemographic characteristics of the participants, Breastfeeding Knowledge Questionnaire (BKQ), and EPDS. At T1, data on breastfeeding rates, breastfeeding duration, BKQ, Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC), EPDS, and Brief Co-Parenting Relationship Scale were collected in community visits through a paper survey. At T2, in addition to the data collected in T1, weight and body length data of the infants at 42 days post partum were obtained to calculate the BMI. At this time, data were collected through Wenjuanxing (an easy-to-use survey platform).

    Sample Size

    Sample size was calculated based on the results of Bich and Cuong [26]. According to the calculation formula of PASS15.0, we calculated the sample size was 72 couples (power=0.80, α=.10). With a 20% attrition rate, the sample size of 90 participant couples was more adequate (total sample size). As a result, 90 participant couples were involved (45 couples in each group).

    Statistical Analysis

    Statistical analysis was undertaken using SPSS (version 24.0; IBM Corp). The per-protocol approach was used to analyze data. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used for judgment of data normality. Continuous data are presented as median (IQR) or means (SD); classified data are presented as n (%). The Mann-Whitney U test, student t test, chi-square test, and the Fisher exact tests were used for data comparison at baseline. Data on EBF rates and EBF duration were analyzed using the chi-square test, Fisher exact tests, or Mann-Whitney U test. Data on coparenting relationship were analyzed by independent samples t test. To examine the influence of the intervention over time, data on breastfeeding knowledge, parenting sense of competence, coparenting relationship, and depressive symptoms were analyzed by a generalized estimation equation. The significance level is set at .05 (2-tailed).

    Ethical Considerations

    The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Medicine, Wuhan University (IRB2022015) and was registered at ChiCTR.org.cn (ChiCTR2300069648). We followed the CONSORT-EHEALTH (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile Health Applications and Online Telehealth) checklist (Multimedia Appendix 3) [27].


    Participant Characteristics

    Sociodemographic characteristics of participants are presented in Table 1. From August 2022 to March 2023, 96 couples were recruited while 79 couples completed the research (39 couples in the intervention group, 40 couples in the control group). The attrition rate was 21.5% (17/79). A total of 17 participants dropped out because of discontinued courses or refusion to complete the survey (Figure 1).

    Table 1. Baseline characteristics of participant couples (N=79).
    VariablesTotal (N=79)Intervention group (n=39)Control group (n=40)P value
    Maternal


    		Age (years), median (IQR)30 (28-32)30 (29-33)30 (28-32).10


    		Urban residence, n (%)76 (96.2)38 (97.4)38 (95)>.99

    		Educational level, n (%).24


    		High school or below11 (13.9)3 (7.7)8 (20)—a


    		Bachelor’s degree60 (76)31 (79.5)29 (72.5)—a


    		Postgraduate or above8 (10.1)5 (12.8)3 (7.5)—a

    		Employment, n (%).71


    		Worker1 (1.3)1 (2.6)0 (0)—a


    		Administrator33 (41.8)17 (43.6)16 (40)—a


    		Teacher8 (10.1)5 (12.8)3 (7.5)—a


    		Private enterprise25 (31.6)12 (30.8)13 (32.5)—a


    		Free work12 (15.2)4 (10.3)8 (20)—a

    		Average monthly household income (Yuan; 1 Yuan=US $0.14), n (%).20


    		≤30001 (1.3)0 (0)1 (2.5)—a


    		3000-500012 (15.2)3 (7.7)9 (22.5)—a


    		5001-10,00034 (43)18 (46.1)16 (40)—a


    		≥10,00032 (40.5)39 (49.4)14 (35)—a

    		Maternal secondary outcomes at baseline, points


    		BKQb0.70 (0.12)0.71 (0.13)0.69 (0.12).37


    		PSOCc61.82 (5.70)61.79 (5.84)61.85 (5.63).97


    		EPDSd8.0 (4-12)8.0 (4-12)7.5 (4-11).98
    Paternal

    		Age (years), median (IQR)32 (30-35)32 (30-35)32 (30-34).64

    		Educational level, n (%).78


    		High school or below6 (7.6)2 (5.1)4 (10)—a


    		Bachelor’s degree63 (79.8)32 (82.1)31 (77.5)—a


    		Postgraduate or above10 (12.7)5 (12.8)5 (12.5)—a

    		Employment, n (%).68e


    		Worker22 (27.9)9 (23.1)13 (32.5)—a


    		Administrator28 (35.4)16 (41.0)12 (30)—a


    		Teacher12 (15.2)5 (12.8)7 (17.5)—a


    		Private enterprise16 (20.3)13 (33.3)3 (7.5)—a


    		Free work1 (1.3)1 (2.6)0 (0)—a

    		Paternal secondary outcomes at baseline, points


    		BKQb0.57 (0.13)0.58 (0.14)0.57 (0.12).77


    		PSOCc60.27 (5.83)60.72 (6.54)59.83 (5.09).5


    		EPDSd 7.67 (3.28)7.23 (3.89)8.10 (2.53).24
    Infant

    		Gestational age (weeks), median (IQR)39 (38-39)38.5 (38-39)39 (38-39).53

    		Delivery mode, vaginal, n (%)38 (48.1)21 (53.9)17 (42.5).37

    		Infants\' gender, female, n (%)43 (54.4)23 (59)20 (50).5

    		Infants’ birth weight (kg), mean (SD)3.16 (0.26)3.18 (0.29)3.15 (0.24).69

    		Infants’ birth length (cm), median (IQR)50 (49-50)50 (49-51)50 (49-50).21

    		Infants’ BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD)12.89 (1.3)12.78 (1.29)13.00 (1.32).46

    a—: not available.

    bBKQ: Breastfeeding Knowledge Questionnaire.

    cPSOC: Parenting Sense of Competence Scale.

    dEPDS: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.

    eFisher exact test.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Flow diagram of participants’ inclusion process. T1: 1 month postpartum; T2: 6 months postpartum.

    The median maternal age was 30 (IQR 28-32) years, and the median paternal age was 32 (IQR 30-35) years. The median gestational age of infants was 39 (IQR 38-39) weeks with 4 infants being premature. A total of 48.1% (38/79) of the infants were delivered vaginally, and 45.6% (36/79) of the infants were male. Among the maternal, paternal and infant data, no statistical differences existed regarding the baseline data (P>.05; Table 1).

    Primary Outcomes: Exclusive Breastfeeding Rate and Exclusive Breastfeeding Duration

    Details of the primary outcomes are presented in Table 2. At T1, the intervention group exhibited a significantly higher EBF rate compared with the control group (89.7% vs 65%, P=.02). At T2, the EBF rate remained higher in the intervention group (43.6% vs 22.5%, P=.02). The intervention group had an extended EBF duration than the control group at T1 (P=.01) and T2 (P<.05).

    Table 2. Effects of breastfeeding coparenting intervention program on breastfeeding rates and breastfeeding duration (N=79).
    Time and variablesTotalControl group (N=40)Intervention group (N=39)P value
    T1a Feeding mode, n (%)


    		.02

    		EBFb61 (77.2)26 (65)35 (89.8)—c

    		Mixed feeding17 (21.5)13 (32.5)4 (10.2)—c

    		Artificial feeding1 (1.3)1 (2.5)0 (0)—c

    		EBF duration (days)30 (28-30)30 (26.5-30)30 (30-30).01
    T2d Feeding mode, n (%)


    		.02

    		EBF26 (32.9)9 (22.5)17 (43.6)—c

    		Mixed feeding39 (49.4)20 (50)19 (48.7)—c

    		Artificial feeding14 (17.7)11 (27.5)3 (7.7)—c

    		EBF duration (days)102 (32-180)89 (28-149.3)108 (60-180).045

    aT1: 1 month post partum.

    bEBF: exclusive breastfeeding.

    c—: not available.

    dT2: 6 months post partum.

    Maternal Secondary Outcomes

    Secondary outcomes of couples are displayed in Table 3. The generalized estimation equation model revealed a significant interaction term concerning maternal BKQ correct rates (group×time) at T1 (β=0.07, 95% CI 0.006-0.13; P=.03), indicating that the intervention effectively improved maternal breastfeeding knowledge at T1. In addition, the model showed a significant interaction term concerning maternal PSOC scores (group×time) at T1 (β=5.48, 95% CI 2.09-8.87; P<.01), demonstrating that the intervention effectively improved maternal parenting sense of competence at T1.

    Table 3. Effects of breastfeeding co-parenting intervention program on secondary outcomes (N=79).
    Parental outcomesControl groupIntervention groupGroup effectTime effectGroup*time effect



    		β (95% CI)P valueβ (95% CI)P value


    β (95% CI)    		P value
    Maternal

    		BKQa correct rates, mean (SD)—b—0.03 (−0.03 to 0.08).03————


    		T0c0.69 (0.12)0.71 (0.13)——————


    		T1d0.68 (0.07)0.77 (0.06)——0.01 (0.05 to 0.04).710.07 (0.006-0.13).03


    		T2e0.78 (0.09)0.81 (0.12)——0.05 (0.01-0.09).01−0.05 (−0.02 to 0.11).18

    		PSOCf, mean (SD)——0.18 (−2.30 to 2.64).89————


    		T0c61.85 (5.63)61.79 (5.84)——————


    		T1d60.73 (4.83)66.72 (3.55)——−1.13 (−3.56 to 1.31).375.48 (2.09-8.87)<.01


    		T2e63.15 (4.53)65.05 (6.44)——1.30 (−1.07 to 3.67).281.39 (−2.40 to 5.19).47

    		EPDSg, mean (SD)——−0.40 (−2.85 to 2.06).75————


    		T0b8.35 (5.99)8.18 (5.15)——————


    		T1c5.65 (2.80)2.67 (2.60)——−2.85 (−4.90 to −0.80)<.01−2.66 (−5.48 to 0.15).58


    		T2d7.85 (3.76)6.69 (4.08)——−0.63 (−2.78 to 1.53).57−0.86 (−3.90 to 2.17).06
    Paternal

    		BKQa correct rates, mean (SD)——0.03 (−0.05 to 0.10).50————


    		T0b0.54 (0.19)0.58 (0.14)——————


    		T1c0.67 (0.12)0.76 (0.13)——0.13 (0.07-0.19)<.0010.08 (−0.003 to 0.17).06


    		T2d0.63 (0.08)0.80 (0.08)——−0.02 (−0.09 to 0.06).650.25 (0.15-0.35)<.001

    		PSOCf, mean (SD)——0.99 (−1.55 to 3.55).44————


    		T0b59.83 (5.09)60.82 (6.51)——————


    		T1c61.55 (5.09)67.90 (4.04)——1.73 (−0.37 to 3.82).115.35 (2.23-8.47)<.01


    		T2d60.10 (6.39)63.85 (4.38)——0.28 (−2.15 to 2.70).822.75 (−0.96 to 6.46).15

    		EPDSg, mean (SD)——0.03 (−0.05 to 0.10).50————


    		T0b9.82 (3.86)8.21 (5.82)——————


    		T1c4.90 (2.38)2.00 (0.95)——0.13 (0.07-0.19)<.0010.08 (−0.003 to 0.17).06


    		T2d11.75 (2.95)5.03 (2.99)——−0.02 (−0.09 to 0.06).650.25 (0.15-0.35)<.001
    Infant

    		Weight, mean (SD)——0.07 (−0.06 to 0.20).291.07 (0.10-1.14)<.0010.09 (−0.05 to 0.24).21


    		At birth3.15 (0.24)3.18 (0.29)——————


    		42 days post partum4.17 (0.40)4.29 (0.42)——————

    		Body length, median (IQR)——0.62 (−0.10 to 1.35).095.06 (4.64-5.49)<.0010.10 (−0.75 to 0.95).81


    		At birth50 (49-50)50 (49-51)——————


    		42 days post partum54.25 (53-56)55 (53-56)——————

    		BMI, mean (SD)——−0.22 (−0.78 to 0.35).46————


    		At birth14.20 (1.31)12.78 (1.29)——————


    		42 days post partum14.17 (1.33)13.00 (1.32)——1.18 (1.01-1.34)<.0010.33 (0.01-0.64).04

    aBKQ: Breastfeeding knowledge questionnaire.

    bNot available.

    cT0: at baseline.

    dT1: 1 month post partum.

    eT2: 6 months post partum.

    fPSOC: Parenting Sense of Competence Scale.

    gEPDS: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.

    Since coparenting relationships were measured only twice, independent-sample t tests were conducted to compare the data. The intervention group exhibited superior coparenting relationships compared with the control group at both T1 (53.67, SD 5.80 vs 47.63, SD 6.21; P<.001) and T2 (53.46, SD 6.28 vs 49.70, SD 7.32; P=.02). Also, a significant reduction in depressive symptoms was observed at T1 (P< .01). To provide a clearer understanding of the study findings, Figure 2 illustrates the changes in secondary outcomes between the groups.

    ‎
    Figure 2. Comparison of the changes in secondary outcomes between groups. EPDS: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; PSOC: Parenting Sense of Competence Scale; T0: at baseline; T1: 1 month post partum; T2: 6 months post partum.

    Paternal Secondary Outcomes

    The generalized estimation equation model showed significant interaction term in relation to paternal BKQ correct rates (group×time) at T2 (β=0.25, 95% CI 0.15-0.35; P<.001), verifying the intervention program’s efficacy in enhancing paternal breastfeeding knowledge at T2. Similarly, the model displayed significant interaction terms concerning paternal PSOC scores (group×time) at T1 (β=5.35, 95% CI 2.23-8.47; P<.01), affirming the intervention program’s effectiveness in improving paternal parenting sense of competence at T1. In addition, there were significant interaction terms observed regarding paternal EPDS scores (group×time) at T2 (β=0.25, 95% CI 0.15-0.35; P<.001), validating the intervention program’s success in reducing paternal depressive symptoms at T2. Furthermore, the model identified significant interaction terms regarding infants’ BMI (group×time; β=0.33, 95% CI 0.01-0.64; P=.04), confirming the intervention program’s positive impact on improving infants’ BMI at 42 days post partum.


    Principal Results

    The main finding of this study was that the breastfeeding coparenting intervention program could effectively improve EBF rates. This is consistent with the study Bich et al [11], who conducted an intervention that provided breastfeeding education materials, counseling services at commune health centers, and household visits to fathers, resulting in a significant increase in exclusive breastfeeding rates at 4 and 6 months. Active participation of fathers in breastfeeding education and support sessions can enhance their understanding of breastfeeding’s importance, fostering a supportive home environment [28,29]. Fathers’ emotional, practical, and physical support is crucial for successful breastfeeding, easing the mothers’ burden and promoting coparenting collaboration [30].

    Although higher than the 40% reported by Su and Ouyang [12], EBF rates fell short of the 55.56% reported by Abbass-Dick et al [14]. This discrepancy may be due to Canada’s higher breastfeeding prevalence rate compared with China. Nevertheless, the rates still did not meet the World Health Organization’s target of 50%. This study highlights the critical role of spousal support in promoting breastfeeding practices. Breastfeeding is a social responsibility that involves individuals, families, and society as a whole. In addition, workplace breastfeeding support and public mother-and-baby rooms are also essential factors in driving change [3,31]. Further work is needed to address these systemic factors. At the same time, the intervention program successfully extended EBF duration by providing comprehensive education and support, enabling participants to overcome breastfeeding-related challenges and maintain EBF for a long period, which is crucial for infant growth and development [3]. The findings highlight the importance of providing adequate support and resources to new parents to promote breastfeeding practices.

    This study laid a firm foundation for enhancing breastfeeding knowledge throughout the first 6 months post partum, which is congruent with the findings of Bich and Cuong [26]. After the breastfeeding intervention program, maternal and paternal breastfeeding knowledge had improved significantly and experienced a slight decline over time, albeit the total improvement was maintained. Initially, paternal breastfeeding knowledge was substantially lower than maternal knowledge, but the gap was narrowed following the intervention, which encouraged both parents to participate and become more engaged in breastfeeding. By the end of the intervention, the knowledge of both mothers and fathers had improved significantly and tended to decline over time, although knowledge levels remained high.

    The intervention effectively enhanced the levels of parenting sense of competence in both parents, which is similar to the findings of Chu et al [32], who reported that participants who received a mobile phone intervention were more likely to feel confident in adopting effective parenting skills and demonstrated a higher level of parenting sense of competence. Greater learned resourcefulness and social support were directly related to maternal role competence and pleasure [33]. High levels of learned resourcefulness enable parents to effectively deal with obstacles. Highly resourceful parents might use learned resourcefulness abilities like problem-solving tactics to reduce or eliminate troubling thoughts and sensations. Consequently, they are more effective, experience less emotional disturbance, and feel more capable and content when faced with the challenges of new parenthood.

    The intervention had no significant effect on alleviating maternal depressive symptoms. The sample of parents reported low scores at baseline on the EPDS, providing a limited possibility for decreasing. In addition, it is also possible that the amount of information conveyed by the intervention was insufficient to elicit a significant reduction in depressive symptoms. Professional therapies, including interpersonal counseling and cognitive behavioral therapy provided by a trained psychotherapist, are necessary for effectively treating perinatal depression [34,35]. In this study, fathers in the control group were at risk of experiencing depressive symptoms at 6 months post partum, which was consistent with the findings of Cameron et al [36]. However, this intervention proved to be effective in alleviating paternal depression at T2. The most common help-seeking barrier reported by parents can refer to a lack of information when needed. The study approach provided content involving mental health and individual counseling, which offered some information support to parents.

    This intervention had a notable impact on enhancing coparenting relationships, which differs from the findings of Abbass-Dick et al [13]. The enhancement observed in coparenting relationships may be related to the lessening of conflict. In this study, the researchers included components in which parents jointly developed breastfeeding objectives, accepted responsibility, provided feeding assistance, and developed strong communication and problem-solving skills, thereby minimizing parental conflicts.

    Previous studies have examined the effects of breastfeeding coparenting interventions on perception of infants using a 5-point scale [37] and infantile development status using Developmental Milestones Checklist-II [38]. This is the first study to examine the impact of coparenting interventions on an infant’s BMI. To collect data on infants of participants in this study during the follow-up period, the researchers referred to health records established in the community. Typically, mothers take their newborns to for wellness checkups at 42 days following delivery. However, data collected at only 42 days post partum are insufficient for determining long-term changes. Therefore, it is necessary to monitor the growth and development of newborns for longer periods.

    In total, 17 couples dropped out, although strategies were adopted to reduce the number of participants who dropped out, including reminding participants to engage in the study and gathering feedback from participants through telephone calls. More effort is needed to successfully engage parents in the intervention programs, such as offering tangible rewards or benefits to participants to complete the intervention successfully.

    The coparenting intervention program for breastfeeding in this study was comprehensive and scientifically informed, drawing on a literature review and expert consultation. The study used both e-health technologies and face-to-face interactions to provide health information. As one of the few randomized controlled studies examining the impact of a breastfeeding coparenting intervention program on breastfeeding-related outcomes in couples having a first pregnancy, the results suggest that delivering health interventions using a video presentation and chatroom format may be an effective approach to improving outcomes.

    Strengths and Limitations

    Dedicated to providing a holistic approach that addressed various aspects of postpartum well-being for both mothers and fathers, this study used a comprehensive intervention approach that included spouses as participants. Study outcomes were assessed 6 months post partum using a range of indicators. The interventions were designed based on theoretical frameworks and implemented under the guidance of multidisciplinary experts.

    Nevertheless, this study is subject to several limitations. First, the relatively short follow-up period of 6 months post partum may not fully capture the enduring effects of the interventions on breastfeeding practices. Extending the follow-up duration to 2 years or more in future investigations would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the maintained impact on breastfeeding-related outcomes over time. Second, the sample predominantly comprised participants from urban areas with access to extensive medical services, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings. This demographic skew potentially constrains the generalizability of the findings to populations with differing socioeconomic backgrounds or geographic locations. To enhance external validity, future studies should strive to recruit a more diverse sample, including couples from rural or remote areas. Finally, while the study effectively evaluated outcome measures, it notably lacked an assessment of process evaluation aspects, such as parental satisfaction with the intervention strategies used. Integrating process evaluation components into future research initiatives would not only provide valuable insights into the acceptability and feasibility of intervention approaches but also facilitate iterative improvements and refinements to enhance program effectiveness.

    Conclusions

    This evidence-based breastfeeding coparenting intervention effectively enhanced EBF rates and prolonged breastfeeding duration at 1 and 6 months post partum. It also improved maternal and paternal breastfeeding knowledge, parenting sense of competence, coparenting relationship, alleviated paternal depression, and increased infants’ BMI at 42 days post partum. Further research is required to evaluate the long-term effects of the intervention across diverse geographic locations and integrate both outcome and process evaluations for a comprehensive understanding of its effectiveness and implementation.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors disclosed that the research has been funded by the Health Bureau of Songzi City (project HBSSZSHLZX0003).

    Authors' Contributions

    Y-YH contributed to conceptualization, investigation, formal analysis, methodology, writing-original draft, and writing—review and editing. RW contributed to conceptualization, investigation, methodology, writing-original draft, and writing—review and editing. W-PH managed conceptualization, methodology, and writing-original draft. TW handled investigation and writing-review and editing. S-YW conducted formal analysis and writing—review and editing, SRR contributed to conceptualization and writing-review and editing. Y-QO managed conceptualization, project administration, and writing—review and editing.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Structure of the breastfeeding co-parenting intervention program.

    DOCX File , 16 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Screenshots of the WeChat account.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 1446 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    CONSORT-EHEALTH (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile Health Applications and Online Telehealth) checklist.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 3394 KB
    1. Arora A, Manohar N, Hayen A, Bhole S, Eastwood J, Levy S, et al. Determinants of breastfeeding initiation among mothers in Sydney, Australia: findings from a birth cohort study. Int Breastfeed J. 2017;12(1):39. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Ghozy S, Tran L, Naveed S, Quynh TTH, Helmy Zayan A, Waqas A, et al. Association of breastfeeding status with risk of autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review, dose-response analysis and meta-analysis. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020;48:101916. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Rollins NC, Bhandari N, Hajeebhoy N, Horton S, Lutter CK, Martines JC, et al. Lancet Breastfeeding Series Group. Why invest, and what it will take to improve breastfeeding practices? Lancet. 2016;387(10017):491-504. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Global targets 2025. World Health Organization; 2015. URL: https://apps.who.int/nutrition/global-target-2025/en/index.html [accessed 2024-11-05]
    5. Global breastfeeding scorecard. UNICEF; 2022. URL: https://www.globalbreastfeedingcollective.org/global-breastfeeding-scorecard [accessed 2022-04-24]
    6. Babies and mothers worldwide failed by lack of investment in breastfeeding. United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund; 2017. URL: https://tinyurl.com/5n7cm39c [accessed 2023-11-09]
    7. Bartick MC, Stuebe AM, Schwarz EB, Luongo C, Reinhold AG, Foster EM. Cost analysis of maternal disease associated with suboptimal breastfeeding. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(1):111-119. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Victora CG, Bahl R, Barros AJD, França GVA, Horton S, Krasevec J, et al. Lancet Breastfeeding Series Group. Breastfeeding in the 21st century: epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. Lancet. 2016;387(10017):475-490. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Bennett AE, Kearney JM. Factors associated with maternal wellbeing at four months post-partum in Ireland. Nutrients. 2018;10(5):609. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Pérez-Escamilla R, Tomori C, Hernández-Cordero S, Baker P, Barros AJD, Bégin F, et al. 2023 Lancet Breastfeeding Series Group. Breastfeeding: crucially important, but increasingly challenged in a market-driven world. Lancet. 2023;401(10375):472-485. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Bich TH, Hoa DTP, Målqvist M. Fathers as supporters for improved exclusive breastfeeding in viet nam. Matern Child Health J. 2014;18(6):1444-1453. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Su M, Ouyang YQ. Father's role in breastfeeding promotion: lessons from a quasi-experimental trial in China. Breastfeed Med. 2016;11:144-149. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Abbass-Dick J, Stern SB, Nelson LE, Watson W, Dennis CL. Coparenting breastfeeding support and exclusive breastfeeding: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2015;135(1):102-110. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Abbass-Dick J, Sun W, Newport A, Xie F, Godfrey D, Goodman WM. The comparison of access to an eHealth resource to current practice on mother and co-parent teamwork and breastfeeding rates: a randomized controlled trial. Midwifery. 2020;90:102812. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Scott JA, Burns SK, Hauck YL, Giglia RC, Jorgensen AM, White BK, et al. Impact of a face-to-face versus smartphone app versus combined breastfeeding intervention targeting fathers: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2021;4(2):e24579. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Abbass-Dick J, Dennis CL. Breast-feeding coparenting framework: a new framework to improve breast-feeding duration and exclusivity. Fam Community Health. 2017;40(1):28-31. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Zhao ZH, Huang YY, Qiao J, Huang WP, Redding SR, Wang R, et al. Co-parenting impact on breastfeeding: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breastfeed Med. 2023;18(6):431-448. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Global nutrition targets 2025: breastfeeding policy brief. World Health Organization; 2014. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-NMH-NHD-14.7 [accessed 2023-11-09]
    19. Ouyang YQ, Xu YX, Zhang Q. Survey on breastfeeding among Chinese female physicians and nurses. Nurs Health Sci. 2012;14(3):298-303. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Johnston C, Mash EJ. A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 1989;18(2):167-175. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Ngai FW, Wai-Chi Chan S, Holroyd E. Translation and validation of a chinese version of the parenting sense of competence scale in chinese mothers. Nurs Res. 2007;56(5):348-354. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Feinberg ME, Brown LD, Kan ML. A multi-domain self-report measure of coparenting. Parent Sci Pract. 2012;12(1):1-21. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Min Wu GJL J, Zhao H. Reliability and validity of Chinese version of Brief Coparenting Relationship Scale. Chinese Journal of Woman and Child Health Research. 2017;28(4):1673-5293.
    24. Lee DT, Yip SK, Chiu HF, Leung TY, Chan KP, Chau IO, et al. Detecting postnatal depression in Chinese women. Validation of the Chinese version of the edinburgh postnatal depression scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1998;172:433-437. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Lau Y, Wang Y, Yin L, Chan KS, Guo X. Validation of the mainland Chinese version of the edinburgh postnatal depression scale in chengdu mothers. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(9):1139-1151. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Bich TH, Cuong NM. Changes in knowledge, attitude and involvement of fathers in supporting exclusive breastfeeding: a community-based intervention study in a rural area of Vietnam. Int J Public Health. 2017;62(Suppl 1):17-26. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Eysenbach G, CONSORT-EHEALTH Group. CONSORT-EHEALTH: improving and standardizing evaluation reports of web-based and mobile health interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e126. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Nickerson LE, Sykes AC, Fung TT. Mothers' experience of fathers' support for breast-feeding. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15(9):1780-1787. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Baldwin S, Bick D, Spiro A. Translating fathers' support for breastfeeding into practice. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2021;22:e60. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Tohotoa J, Maycock B, Hauck YL, Howat P, Burns S, Binns CW. Dads make a difference: an exploratory study of paternal support for breastfeeding in perth, western australia. Int Breastfeed J. 2009;4:15. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Yang Z, Ding Y, Song S, Zhang Y, Li A, Su M, et al. Factors affecting the breastfeeding duration of infants and young children in China: a cross-sectional study. Nutrients. 2023;15(6):1353. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Chu JTW, Wadham A, Jiang Y, Whittaker R, Stasiak K, Shepherd M, et al. Effect of myTeen SMS-based mobile intervention for parents of adolescents: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(9):e1911120. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Ngai FW, Chan SWC. Psychosocial factors and maternal wellbeing: an exploratory path analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011;48(6):725-731. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Hankin BL, Demers CH, Hennessey EMP, Perzow SED, Curran MC, Gallop RJ, et al. Effect of brief interpersonal therapy on depression during pregnancy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80(6):539-547. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Van Lieshout RJ, Layton H, Savoy CD, Xie F, Brown JSL, Huh K, et al. In-person 1-day cognitive behavioral therapy-based workshops for postpartum depression: a randomized controlled trial. Psychol Med. 2023;53(14):1-11. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Cameron EE, Sedov ID, Tomfohr-Madsen LM. Prevalence of paternal depression in pregnancy and the postpartum: an updated meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2016;206:189-203. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Salonen AH, Kaunonen M, Astedt-Kurki P, Järvenpää AL, Tarkka MT. Development of an internet-based intervention for parents of infants. J Adv Nurs. 2008;64(1):60-72. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Rempel JK, Rempel LA, Hoa DT, Vui LT, Long TK. Parenting teamwork: the impact of a fathering intervention on mothers and infants in vietnam. Child Dev. 2020;91(2):e345-e364. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    BKQ: Breastfeeding Knowledge Questionnaire
    CONSORT-EHEALTH: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile Health Applications and Online Telehealth
    EBF: Exclusive breastfeeding.
    EPDS: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.
    PSOC: Parenting Sense of Competence Scale.

    Edited by A Coristine; submitted 05.08.23; peer-reviewed by J Abbass-Dick, R Kelishadi; comments to author 22.02.24; revised version received 10.06.24; accepted 23.08.24; published 17.12.24.

    Copyright

    ©Yi-Yan Huang, Rong Wang, Wei-Peng Huang, Tian Wu, Shi-Yun Wang, Sharon R. Redding, Yan-Qiong Ouyang. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 17.12.2024.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.