Improving support for breastfeeding mothers: a qualitative study on the experiences of breastfeeding among mothers who reside in a deprived and culturally diverse community.

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe, with the initiation and continuation of breastfeeding shown to be closely related to the mothers' age, ethnicity and social class. Whilst the barriers that influence a woman's decision to breastfeed are well documented, less is known how these barriers vary by the UK's diverse population. As such, this study aimed to explore mothers' experiences of breastfeeding and accessing breastfeeding services offered locally amongst a deprived and culturally diverse community. METHODS: A qualitative interpretive study comprising of 63 mothers (white British n = 8, Pakistani n = 13, Bangladeshi n = 10, black African n = 15 and Polish n = 17) who took part in single-sex focus groups, conducted in local community centres across the most deprived and ethnically diverse wards in Luton, UK. The focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: The most common barriers to breastfeeding irrespective of ethnicity were perceptions surrounding pain and lack of milk. Confidence and motivation were found to be crucial facilitators of breastfeeding; whereby mothers felt that interventions should seek to reassure and support mothers not only during the early stages but throughout the breastfeeding journey. Mothers particularly valued the practical support provided by health care professions particularly surrounding positioning and attachment techniques. However, many mothers felt that the support from health care professionals was not always followed through. CONCLUSIONS: The findings presented inform important recommendations for the design and implementation of future programs and interventions targeted at reducing breastfeeding inequalities. Interventions should focus on providing mothers practical support and reassurance not only during the early stages but throughout their breastfeeding journey. The findings also highlight the need for tailoring services to support diverse communities which acknowledge different traditional and familial practices

Parents’ experiences of complementary feeding among a United Kingdom culturally diverse and deprived community

open access articleComplementary feeding practices and adherence to health recommendations are influenced by a range of different and often interrelating factors such as socio- economic and cultural factors. However, the factors underlying these associations are often complex with less awareness of how complementary feeding approaches vary across the UK’s diverse population. This paper describes a qualitative investiga- tion undertaken in a deprived and culturally diverse community in the UK which aimed to explore parents’ knowledge, beliefs and practices of complementary feed- ing. One hundred and ten mothers and fathers, self-identified as being White British, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Black African/Caribbean or Polish took part in twenty-four focus group discussions, organised by age group, sex and ethnicity. The findings revealed that most parents initiated complementary feeding before the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendation of 6 months. Early initiation was strongly influenced by breast feeding practices alongside the extent to which parents believed that their usual milk; that is, breastmilk or formula was fulfilling their infants' nutritional needs. The composition of diet and parents' approach to complementary feeding was closely aligned to traditional cultural practices; however, some contradic- tions were noted. The findings also acknowledge the pertinent role of the father in influencing the dietary practices of the wider household. Learning about both the common and unique cultural feeding attitudes and practices held by parents may help us to tailor healthy complementary feeding advice in the context of increasing diver- sity in the United Kingdom

'They Are Kids, Let Them Eat': A Qualitative Investigation into the Parental Beliefs and Practices of Providing a Healthy Diet for Young Children among a Culturally Diverse and Deprived Population in the UK.

In the UK, ethnic minority children are at greater risk of obesity and weight-related ill health compared to the wider national population. The factors that influence the provision of a healthy diet among these populations remain less understood. An interpretive qualitative study with a phenomenological perspective comprised of 24 single sex semi-structured focus groups was conducted with 110 parents (63 mothers and 47 fathers) of young children (aged 0-5 years). The participants were recruited from deprived and ethnically diverse wards in Luton, UK and self-identified as being white British, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, black African-Caribbean or Polish. The findings highlighted a wide range of inter-relating psychological and sociocultural factors that underpin parental beliefs and practices in providing children with a healthy diet. Parents, whilst aware of the importance of providing children with a healthy diet, faced challenges such as lack of time and balancing competing responsibilities, which were clear barriers to providing children with a healthy diet. Access to and affordability of healthy food and the overexposure of cheap, convenient, and unhealthy processed foods made it increasingly difficult for parents to provide a healthy diet for their growing families. Household food practices were also found to be situated within the wider context of sociocultural and religious norms around cooking and eating, along with cultural identity and upbringing

Live-attenuated Mycobacterium tuberculosis vaccine MTBVAC versus BCG in adults and neonates: a randomised controlled, double-blind dose-escalation trial

Background: Infants are a key target population for new tuberculosis vaccines. We assessed the safety and immunogenicity of the live-attenuated Mycobacterium tuberculosis vaccine candidate MTBVAC in adults and infants in a region where transmission of tuberculosis is very high. Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, BCG-controlled, dose-escalation trial at the South African Tuberculosis Vaccine Initiative site near Cape Town, South Africa. Healthy adult community volunteers who were aged 18–50 years, had received BCG vaccination as infants, were HIV negative, had negative interferon-¿ release assay (IGRA) results, and had no personal history of tuberculosis or current household contact with someone with tuberculosis were enrolled in a safety cohort. Infants born to HIV-negative women with no personal history of tuberculosis or current household contact with a person with tuberculosis and who were 96 h old or younger, generally healthy, and had not yet received routine BCG vaccination were enrolled in a separate infant cohort. Eligible adults were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either BCG Vaccine SSI (5 × 105 colony forming units [CFU] of Danish strain 1331 in 0·1 mL diluent) or MTBVAC (5 × 105 CFU in 0·1 mL) intradermally in the deltoid region of the arm. After favourable review of 28-day reactogenicity and safety data in the adult cohort, infants were randomly assigned (1:3) to receive either BCG Vaccine SSI (2·5 × 105 CFU in 0·05 mL diluent) or MTBVAC in three sequential cohorts of increasing MTBVAC dose (2·5 × 103 CFU, 2·5 × 104 CFU, and 2·5 × 105 CFU in 0·05 mL) intradermally in the deltoid region of the arm. QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube IGRA was done on days 180 and 360. For both randomisations, a pre-prepared block randomisation schedule was used. Participants (and their parents or guardians in the case of infant participants), investigators, and other clinical and laboratory staff were masked to intervention allocation. The primary outcomes, which were all measured in the infant cohort, were solicited and unsolicited local adverse events and serious adverse events until day 360; non-serious systemic adverse events until day 28 and vaccine-specific CD4 and CD8 T-cell responses on days 7, 28, 70, 180, and 360. Secondary outcomes measured in adults were local injection-site and systemic reactions and haematology and biochemistry at study day 7 and 28. Safety analyses and immunogenicity analyses were done in all participants who received a dose of vaccine. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02729571. Findings: Between Sept 29, 2015, and Nov 16, 2015, 62 adults were screened and 18 were enrolled and randomly assigned, nine each to the BCG and MTBVAC groups. Between Feb 12, 2016, and Sept 21, 2016, 36 infants were randomly assigned—eight to the BCG group, nine to the 2·5 × 103 CFU MTBVAC group, nine to the 2·5 × 104 CFU group, and ten to the 2·5 × 105 CFU group. Mild injection-site reactions occurred only in infants in the BCG and the 2·5 × 105 CFU MTBVAC group, with no evidence of local or regional injection-site complications. Systemic adverse events were evenly distributed across BCG and MTBVAC dose groups, and were mostly mild in severity. Eight serious adverse events were reported in seven vaccine recipients (one adult MTBVAC recipient, one infant BCG recipient, one infant in the 2·5 × 103 CFU MTBVAC group, two in the 2·5 × 104 CFU MTBVAC group, and two in the 2·5 × 105 CFU MTBVAC group), including one infant in the 2·5 × 103 CFU MTBVAC group treated for unconfirmed tuberculosis and one in the 2·5 × 105 CFU MTBVAC group treated for unlikely tuberculosis. One infant died as a result of possible viral pneumonia. Vaccination with all MTBVAC doses induced durable antigen-specific T-helper-1 cytokine-expressing CD4 cell responses in infants that peaked 70 days after vaccination and were detectable 360 days after vaccination. For the highest MTBVAC dose (ie, 2·5 × 105 CFU), these responses exceeded responses induced by an equivalent dose of the BCG vaccine up to 360 days after vaccination. Dose-related IGRA conversion was noted in three (38%) of eight infants in the 2·5 × 103 CFU MTBVAC group, six (75%) of eight in the 2·5 × 104 CFU MTBVAC group, and seven (78%) of nine in the 2·5 × 105 CFU MTBVAC group at day 180, compared with none of seven infants in the BCG group. By day 360, IGRA reversion had occurred in all three infants (100%) in the 2·5 × 103 CFU MTBVAC group, four (67%) of the six in the 2·5 × 104 CFU MTBVAC group, and three (43%) of the seven in the 2·5 × 105 CFU MTBVAC group. Interpretation: MTBVAC had acceptable reactogenicity, and induced a durable CD4 cell response in infants. The evidence of immunogenicity supports progression of MTBVAC into larger safety and efficacy trials, but also confounds interpretation of tests for M tuberculosis infection, highlighting the need for stringent endpoint definition. Funding: Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, TuBerculosis Vaccine Initiative, UK Department for International Development, and Biofabri

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials