IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i21p7903-d436344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subjective Environmental Experiences and Women’s Breastfeeding Journeys: A Survival Analysis Using an Online Survey of UK Mothers

Author

Listed:
  • Laura J. Brown

    (Department of International Development, London School of Economics & Political Science, London WC2A 2AE, UK
    Institute for Global Health, University College London, London NW3 2PF, UK)

  • Sarah Myers

    (UCL Anthropology, University College London, London WC1H 0BW, UK
    BirthRites Independent Max Planck Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 04103 Leipzig, Germany)

  • Abigail E. Page

    (Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK)

  • Emily H. Emmott

    (UCL Anthropology, University College London, London WC1H 0BW, UK)

Abstract

Local physical and social environmental factors are important drivers of human health and behaviour. Environmental perception has been linked with both reproduction and parenting, but links between subjective environmental experiences and breastfeeding remain unclear. Using retrospective data from an online survey of UK mothers of children aged 0–24 months, Cox-Aalen survival models test whether negative subjective environmental experiences negatively correlated with any and exclusive breastfeeding (max n = 473). Matching predictions, hazards of stopping any breastfeeding were increased, albeit non-significantly, across the five environmental measures (HR: 1.05–1.26) Hazards for stopping exclusive breastfeeding were however (non-significantly) reduced (HR: 0.65–0.87). Score processes found no significant time-varying effects. However, estimated cumulative coefficient graphs showed that the first few weeks postpartum were most susceptible to environmental influences and that contrary to our predictions, mothers with worse subjective environmental experiences were less likely to stop breastfeeding at this time. In addition, the hazard of stopping exclusive breastfeeding declined over time for mothers who thought that littering was a problem. The predicted increased hazards of stopping breastfeeding were only evident in the later stages of any breastfeeding and only for mothers who reported littering as a problem or that people tended not to know each other. Perceived harsher physical and social environmental conditions are assumed to deter women from breastfeeding, but this may not always be the case. Women’s hazards of stopping breastfeeding change over time and there may be particular timepoints in their breastfeeding journeys where subjective environmental experiences play a role.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura J. Brown & Sarah Myers & Abigail E. Page & Emily H. Emmott, 2020. "Subjective Environmental Experiences and Women’s Breastfeeding Journeys: A Survival Analysis Using an Online Survey of UK Mothers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-27, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:21:p:7903-:d:436344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7903/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7903/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    2. Daniel Nettle, 2010. "Dying young and living fast: variation in life history across English neighborhoods," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(2), pages 387-395.
    3. Tak Chan & John Ermisch, 2015. "Proximity of Couples to Parents: Influences of Gender, Labor Market, and Family," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 52(2), pages 379-399, April.
    4. Curtis, Sarah & Southall, H. & Congdon, P. & Dodgeon, B., 2004. "Area effects on health variation over the life-course: analysis of the longitudinal study sample in England using new data on area of residence in childhood," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 57-74, January.
    5. Emily H Emmott & Ruth Mace, 2015. "Practical Support from Fathers and Grandmothers Is Associated with Lower Levels of Breastfeeding in the UK Millennium Cohort Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, July.
    6. Kiernan, Kathleen & Pickett, Kate E., 2006. "Marital status disparities in maternal smoking during pregnancy, breastfeeding and maternal depression," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 335-346, July.
    7. Marja Kaunonen & Leena Hannula & Marja‐Terttu Tarkka, 2012. "A systematic review of peer support interventions for breastfeeding," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(13-14), pages 1943-1954, July.
    8. Emmott, Emily H. & Page, Abigail E. & Myers, Sarah, 2020. "Typologies of postnatal support and breastfeeding at two months in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    9. Pearl, M. & Braveman, P. & Abrams, B., 2001. "The relationship of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics to birthweight among 5 ethnic groups in California," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(11), pages 1808-1814.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jinseok P. Kim & Eunkook M. Suh, 2024. "Childhood Socioeconomic Status Shapes Beliefs About Hedonic Versus Eudaimonic Happiness: A Life History Approach," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 1-21, June.
    2. Bence Csaba Farkas & Valérian Chambon & Pierre O. Jacquet, 2022. "Do perceived control and time orientation mediate the effect of early life adversity on reproductive behaviour and health status? Insights from the European Value Study and the European Social Survey," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Harpur, Ruth Ann & Haddon, Susanna J., 2020. "Typologies of postnatal support and breastfeeding at two months in the UK: Research participant commentary," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    4. repec:osf:osfxxx:fqmdu_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Sibilla Di Guida & Ido Erev & Davide Marchiori, 2014. "Cross Cultural Differences in Decisions from Experience: Evidence from Denmark, Israel and Taiwain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-16, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Hind Dib‐slamani & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Is theft considered less severe when the victim is a foreign company?," Post-Print hal-03340844, HAL.
    7. Daniel Nettle, 2010. "Why Are There Social Gradients in Preventative Health Behavior? A Perspective from Behavioral Ecology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-6, October.
    8. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    9. Louis Arnault & Roméo Fontaine, 2018. "Filial caregiving for the disabled elderly: the role of contextual interactions," Working Papers 1, French Institute for Demographic Studies.
    10. Kyriaki Remoundou & Drichoutis Andreas & Phoebe Koundouri, 2010. "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1028, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    11. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    12. Pelin Akyol & Zeynep Yılmaz, 2024. "Effects of Grandmothers' Proximity on Mothers' Labour Force Participation," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 86(5), pages 1122-1162, October.
    13. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx, Center for Open Science.
    14. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    15. Nicolas Jacquemet & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2014. "What drives failure to maximize payoffs in the lab? A test of the inequality aversion hypothesis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 243-264, December.
    16. repec:osf:socarx:n49hv_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Dai, Zhixin & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2024. "Theories of reasoning and focal point play with a matched non-student sample," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    18. Jenny C Su & Chi-Yue Chiu & Wei-Fang Lin & Shigehiro Oishi, 2016. "Social Monitoring Matters for Deterring Social Deviance in Stable but Not Mobile Socio-Ecological Contexts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-13, November.
    19. repec:osf:osfxxx:nb7tg_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Goran Calic & Moren Lévesque & Anton Shevchenko, 2024. "On why women-owned businesses take more time to secure microloans," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 917-938, October.
    21. Sirola, Nina, 2023. "Going beyond the call of duty under conditions of economic threat: Integrating life history and temporal dilemma perspectives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    22. Joshua Conrad Jackson & Marieke van Egmond & Virginia K Choi & Carol R Ember & Jamin Halberstadt & Jovana Balanovic & Inger N Basker & Klaus Boehnke & Noemi Buki & Ronald Fischer & Marta Fulop & Ashle, 2019. "Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, September.
    23. Tonny J. Oyana & Patricia Matthews-Juarez & Stephania A. Cormier & Xiaoran Xu & Paul D. Juarez, 2015. "Using an External Exposome Framework to Examine Pregnancy-Related Morbidities and Mortalities: Implications for Health Disparities Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:21:p:7903-:d:436344. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.