Skip to main content
American Journal of Public Health logoLink to American Journal of Public Health
. 2012 Oct;102(10):1865–1868. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300737

Maternal Religious Involvement and Breastfeeding Initiation and Duration

Amy M Burdette 1,, Natasha V Pilkauskas 1
PMCID: PMC3490661  NIHMSID: NIHMS476882  PMID: 22897559

Abstract

Although religious involvement is associated with a number of beneficial health outcomes, few studies have investigated whether religious involvement is associated with breastfeeding behaviors. Our analyses of 2 waves of data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (n = 4 166) indicate that mothers who frequently attend religious services are more likely to initiate breastfeeding than are mothers who never attend services. Understanding religious variations in breastfeeding may allow public health officials to more effectively target vulnerable populations.


Researchers note important demographic and socioeconomic disparities in breastfeeding behaviors.1–4 Understanding variations in breastfeeding is critical given the numerous benefits that breast milk is shown to confer.5–8 Our study builds on recent interest in religion and health. Scholarship on maternal health suggests that church attendance is inversely associated with risky health behaviors among pregnant and postpartum women.9 Religious attendance, as well as specific religious subcultures, may influence breastfeeding behaviors.10,11 Investigating the link between religion and breastfeeding could bring to light potential public health interventions.

We used data from 2 waves of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS) to analyze the association between religious involvement and breastfeeding initiation and duration. Ours is the first study to our knowledge to examine the association between religion and breastfeeding in a large, religiously and racially diverse sample of predominately unmarried mothers. Exploring religious variations in breastfeeding among this economically disadvantaged population is vital because breastfeeding rates remain low. Because religious institutions are well represented in the poorest neighborhoods, where there are few protective social institutions,12,13 understanding religious differences in breastfeeding may provide practitioners with opportunities to target programs in poorer communities.

METHODS

We used data from the FFCWS, a longitudinal birth cohort study of 4898 children. Between 1998 and 2000, children were sampled at birth from 75 randomly selected hospitals in 20 US cities with populations greater than 200 000.14 Roughly three quarters of the FFCWS includes births (both first and higher order) to unmarried parents, and thus includes a relatively disadvantaged sample in terms of education and income. Mothers were interviewed shortly after the birth, and follow-up interviews were conducted 1 year after the child’s birth with a response rate of 90%. Mothers were excluded from the analyses if they did not participate in the 1-year follow-up (n = 534), were not going to live with their child (n = 28), had twins (n = 98), or had incomplete measures for breastfeeding or religion (n = 72).We used multiple imputation to account for missing data on covariates.15,16

We utilized logistic regression to predict (1) the odds of ever having breastfed and, among those who breastfed, and (2) the odds of having breastfed for 6 months or more. Religious affiliation was coded as a series of dummy variables, including no affiliation (omitted category), Mainline Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Baptist, other Conservative Protestant, other Christian, and “other” religion. This coding scheme reflects the major religious groups within the United States and is similar to that of other research using FFCWS data.17 Religious attendance consisted of 5 dummy variables: never attend (omitted category), less than a few times a year, a few times a year, a few times a month, and once a week or more. Each model included an extensive set of control variables, including mother’s age, race/ethnicity, education, immigrant status, relationship status, and first birth. We also included the child’s age at the year 1 interview, household income-to-needs ratio, maternal health, low birth weight, working or in school between the birth and the year 1 interview, and dummy variables for city of residence (not shown). Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1—

Demographic and Descriptive Statistics: The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, United States, 1998–2001

% or Mean ±SD
Ever breastfed 56.94
Breastfed ≥ 6 moa 36.41
Religious affiliation
 No religion 11.05
 Mainline Protestant 5.36
 Catholic 29.03
 Muslim 1.35
 Baptist 26.46
 Other Conservative Protestant 4.61
 Other Christian 15.76
 Other non-Christian religion 6.38
Attendance
 Never 14.54
 < a few times/y 25.77
 A few times/y 21.2
 A few times/mo 16.43
 ≥ once/wk 22.07
Mother’s age, y 25.14 ±6.04
Race/ethnicity
 White non-Hispanic 21.8
 Black non-Hispanic 47.38
 Hispanic 27.1
 Other non-Hispanic 3.72
Education
 < high school 33.63
 High school degree 30.41
 Some college 24.99
 ≥ bachelor’s degree 10.97
Immigrant 16.02
Relationship status
 Married 24.78
 Cohabiting 36.2
 Single 39.02
First birth 38.55
Child’s age, mo 15.01 ±3.48
Income-to-needs ratio 2.25 ±2.43
Fair or poor health 7.33
Baby had low birth weight 9.58
Enrolled in school or working at year 1 74.39

Note. All characteristics refer to the mother unless stated otherwise. The sample size was n = 4,166.

a

Among mothers who ever breastfed (n = 2,374).

RESULTS

Multivariate results are displayed in Table 2. Conservative Protestants, Muslims, other Christians, and members of other religious faiths all displayed higher odds of breastfeeding compared with their unaffiliated counterparts. Model 2 suggested that attending church once a week or more was associated with a 55% increase in the odds of initiating breastfeeding in contrast to never attending services. The inclusion of church attendance with religious affiliation in model 3 diminished the effect of affiliation for all religious groups except Muslims, Conservative Protestants, and members of other religious faiths. Members of each of these religious groups continued to display higher odds of breastfeeding than did mothers with no affiliation. Frequent church attendance continued to be associated with higher odds of breastfeeding in model 3 (49% increase). Unlike the results for breastfeeding initiation, there were few religious variations in breastfeeding 6 months or longer, with only marginally significant associations for Muslim affiliation (model 4) and church attendance (models 5 and 6).

TABLE 2—

Logistic Regression of Breast Feeding Behaviors on Religious Involvement and Background Factors: The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, United States, 1998–2001

Ever Breastfed (n = 4,166)
Breastfed ≥ 6 Mo (n = 2,374)
Variables Model 1, OR Model 2, OR Model 3, OR Model 4, OR Model 5, OR Model 6, OR
Religious affiliation
 Mainline Protestant 1.178 1.056 0.869 0.832
 Catholic 0.911 0.803 1.111 1.028
 Muslim 2.677** 2.382* 1.925 1.791
 Baptist 1.135 1.013 0.921 0.861
 Other Conservative Protestant 1.846** 1.600* 0.965 0.856
 Other Christian 1.348* 1.164 0.975 0.895
 Other non-Christian religion 1.693** 1.431 0.926 0.854
Church Attendance
 < a few times/y 0.985 0.985 0.995 1.029
 A few times/y 1.247 1.218 0.968 1.003
 A few times/mo 1.347* 1.346* 1.025 1.063
 ≥ once/wk 1.554*** 1.485** 1.314 1.362
Sociodemographic/control
 Age 0.992 0.988 0.990 1.016 1.014 1.015
 Black 0.551*** 0.550*** 0.519*** 1.061 0.987 1.031
 Hispanic 0.916 0.800 0.882 0.956 0.942
 Other 0.698 0.695 0.687 0.638 0.640 0.641
 < high school 0.774** 0.788** 0.790** 0.948 0.951 0.957
 Some college 1.863*** 1.855*** 1.833*** 1.279 1.268 1.260
 ≥ college 3.326*** 3.153*** 3.196*** 2.380*** 2.329*** 2.306***
 Immigrant 4.572*** 4.166*** 4.348*** 2.030*** 2.051*** 1.990***
 Cohabiting 0.652*** 0.666*** 0.694** 0.672** 0.703** 0.702**
 Single 0.549*** 0.547*** 0.570*** 0.663** 0.674** 0.681**
 First birth 1.297** 1.292** 1.293** 0.729** 0.741** 0.733**
 Child’s age, mo 0.971 0.973 0.972 1.010 1.012 1.012
 Income to needs ratio 1.003 1.000 1.004 0.984 0.987 0.988
 Fair or poor health 0.796 0.811 0.802 1.001 0.993 1.003
 Baby had low birth weight 0.764* 0.780* 0.774* 0.571** 0.574** 0.571**
 In school/working at year 1 1.235* 1.235* 1.234* 0.672*** 0.665*** 0.671***
 Constant 5.372 6.035 5.262 0.463 0.443 0.446

Note. OR = odds ratio. Omitted categories: No religion, never attend, White, high school, married. Models included 19 dummy variables for city of residence at baseline interview (coefficients not shown).

* P < .05; ** P < .01; *** P < .001.

DISCUSSION

Consistent with studies noting the positive association between church attendance and health,9,18,19 our results suggest that frequent service attendance is associated with increased odds of breastfeeding initiation. Our analyses revealed a weaker association between attendance and breastfeeding duration. These patterns may suggest an opportunity for practitioners to reach a population that may initiate, but not sustain, breastfeeding. Scholars have noted the importance of church-based health programs in reaching underserved populations.20,21 Further investigation into the mechanisms linking religious involvement and breastfeeding behaviors would be valuable to public health researchers and practitioners. Mechanisms may include church-based social networks, attitudes toward childrearing, and health behaviors.

The FFCWS is only representative of births in large urban areas, which limits our ability to generalize our findings to the broader US population. Despite this limitation, our study makes an original contribution to our understanding of the social distribution of breastfeeding by highlighting the significant role of religious involvement.

Acknowledgments

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD; grants R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421), as well as a consortium of private foundations.

The authors would like to thank Terrence Hill for helpful comments and suggestions.

Human Participant Protection

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study was reviewed and approved by the Princeton University and the Columbia University internal review boards.

References

  • 1.Li R, Darling N, Maurice E, Barker L, Grummer-Strawn LM. Breastfeeding rates in the United States by characteristics of the child, mother, or family: the 2002 National Immunization Survey. Pediatrics. 2005;115(1):e31–e37 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kogan MD, Singh GK, Dee DL, Belanoff C, Grummer-Strawn LM. Multivariate analysis of state variation in breastfeeding rates in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(10):1872–1880 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chatterji P, Brooks-Gunn J. WIC participation, breastfeeding practices, and well-child care among unmarried, low-income mothers. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(8):1324–1327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gibson-Davis CM, Brooks-Gunn J. Couples’ immigration status and ethnicity as determinants of breastfeeding. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:641–646 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lawrence RA. A Review of the Medical Benefits and Contraindications to Breastfeeding in the United States. Arlington, VA: Maternal and Child Health Bureau; 1997 [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cushing AH, Samet JM, Lambert WEet al. Breastfeeding reduces risk of respiratory illness in infants. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147(9):863–870 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Vogazianos E, Vogazianos P, Fiala J, Janeček D, Šlapák I. The effect of breastfeeding and its duration on acute otitis media in children in Brno, Czech Republic. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2007;15(4):143–146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sacker A, Quigley MA, Kelly YJ. Breastfeeding and developmental delay: findings from the Millennium Cohort Study. Pediatrics. 2006;118(3):e682–e689 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Page RL, Ellison C, Lee J. Does religiosity affect health risk behaviors in pregnant and postpartum women? Matern Child Health J. 2009;13(5):621–632 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shaikh U, Ahmed O. Islam and infant feeding. Breastfeed Med. 2006;1:164–167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kippley SM. Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood: God’s Plan for You and Your Baby. Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press; 2005 [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Foley MW, McCarthy JD, Chaves M. Social capital, religious institutions, and poor communities. In: Saegert S, Thompson JP, Warren MR, eds. Social Capital and Poor Communities. New York, NY: Russell Sage; 2001:215–245.
  • 13.Hill TD, Burdette AM, Regnerus M, Angel RJ. Religious involvement and attitudes toward parenting among low-income urban women. J Fam Issues. 2008;29:882–900 [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Reichman NE, Teitler J, Garfinkel I, McLanahan S. Fragile Families: sample and design. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2001;23(4):303–326 [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Allison PD. Missing data. Vol 136 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002 [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rubin D. Inference and missing data. Biometrika. 1976;63:581–592 [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wilcox WB, Wolfinger NH. Living and loving “decent”: religion and relationship quality among urban parents. Soc Sci Res. 2008;37(3):828–843 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson DB. Handbook of Religion and Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001 [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hill TD, Burdette AM, Idler EL. Religious involvement, health status, and mortality risk. In: Settersten R, Angel J, eds. Handbook of Sociology of Aging. New York, NY: Springer; 2011:533–546.
  • 20.Peterson J, Atwood JR, Yates B. Key elements for church-based health promotion programs: outcome-based literature review. Public Health Nurs. 2002;19(6):401–411 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Campbell MK, Hudson MA, Resnicow K, Blakeney N, Paxton A, Baskin M. Church-based health promotion interventions: evidence and lessons learned. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28(1):213–234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

RESOURCES