Skip to main content
NCBI home page
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth logoLink to BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
. 2018 May 16;18:171. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-1811-4

Trends and factors associated with early initiation of breastfeeding in Namibia: analysis of the Demographic and Health Surveys 2000–2013

M N Ndirangu 1,✉, S M Gatimu 2, H M Mwinyi 3, D C Kibiwott 4
PMCID: PMC5956738  PMID: 29769063

Abstract

Background

Early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) lowers the risk for all-cause mortality in babies, including those with low birth weight. However, rates of neonatal mortality and delayed initiation of breastfeeding remain high in most low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to assess the trends and factors associated with EIBF in Namibia from 2000 to 2013.

Methods

An analysis of EIBF trends was conducted using data from three Namibia Demographic Health Surveys. The present sample included singleton children younger than 2-years from 2000 (n = 1655), 2006–2007 (n = 2152) and 2013 (n = 2062) surveys. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse respondents’ demographic, socioeconomic and obstetric characteristics. Factors associated with EIBF were assessed using univariate analysis and further evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results

EIBF significantly decreased from 82.5% (confidence interval [CI]: 79.5–85.0) in 2000 to 74.9% (72.5–77.2) in 2013. Factors associated with EIBF in 2000 were urban residence (adjusted odds ratio 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36–0.93), poorer household wealth index (1.82, 1.05–3.17), lack of antenatal care (0.14, 0.03–0.81), small birth size (0.38, 0.24–0.63) and large birth size (0.51, 0.37–0.79). In 2013, factors associated with EIBF were maternal age of 15–19 years (2.28, 1.22–4.24), vaginal delivery (2.74, 1.90–3.93), married mothers (1.57, 1.16–2.14), delivery assistance from health professionals (3.67, 1.23–10.9) and birth order of fourth or above (1.52, 1.03–2.26).

Conclusions

Namibia has experienced a declining trend in EIBF rates from 2000 to 2013. Factors associated with EIBF differed between 2000 and 2013. The present findings highlight the importance of continued commitment to addressing neonatal health challenges and strengthening implementation of interventions to increase EIBF in Namibia.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-1811-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Keywords: Breastfeeding, Early initiation, Trends, Determinants, Namibia, Demographic health survey

Background

Globally, under half of the newborns are breastfed within an hour of delivery [1]. The proportion is even lower in the African region (44%); this rate is “fair” according to World Health Organization (WHO) classification of early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) but falls below “very good” (90–100%) [2]. The benefits of EIBF for both mother and baby are well-documented, including reduced risk of postpartum haemorrhage [3, 4], increased mother-baby bonding, increased colonisation of the baby’s enteric system by microflora [5, 6] and reduced neonatal mortality (including among low birth weight babies) [7, 8].

Despite these benefits, the rate of EIBF in most middle-income countries remains low, including in Namibia. For example, EIBF rates are 30.8 and 41.9% in rural and urban Nigeria respectively [9], 44.7% in Algeria and 58.7% in Kenya [10]. Low EIBF rates are associated with unskilled birth attendance [11], non-health facility [12] and caesarean deliveries [10, 13] and maternal complications [10]. High EIBF rates are associated with health facility delivery, large birth size, formal education, urban residence, wealthier household index, non-working mothers, higher birth order and female babies [9, 13–15].

In the early 1990s, the WHO and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) launched the Baby Mother-Friendly Initiative (BMFI) to support breastfeeding practices. Namibia adopted this initiative in 1992 and was among the first African countries to launch BMFI [16]. In Namibia, BMFI resulted in training healthcare professionals on breastfeeding management and promotion, certification of all 35 hospitals as baby-friendly [17] and an increase in EIBF from 52% in 1992 to 81% in 2000 [18]. However, in recent years, Namibia has experienced changes that have posed threats to these gains. The prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among pregnant women receiving antenatal care increased from 4.2% in 1992 to 19.3% in 2000, with breastfeeding contributing 30–40% of mother-to-child transmission of HIV [19]. Namibia was also reclassified as an upper middle-income country in 2009, but rates of unemployment and poverty remain high. To date, no studies in Namibia have investigated the potential effects of these changes on child health indicators, including EIBF.

Namibia also failed to meet targets for child health specified in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) [20]. Recent UNICEF estimates indicate the EIBF rate declined from 81% in 2000 to 71% in 2016 [1, 20]. This downward trend and the lack of evidence on changes over time in factors associated with EIBF necessitate further investigations using nationally representative data. This study aimed to assess trends and factors associated with EIBF in Namibia from 2000 to 2013.

Methods

Data sources and sample

This study used nationally representative child datasets from the Namibia Demographic and Health Surveys (NDHS) for 2000, 2006–2007 and 2013 [18, 20, 21]. All surveys used a two-stage stratified cluster sampling design based on administrative regions and locations [18, 20, 21]. The first stage involved identification of primary sampling units and the second involved selection of households. Both stages were based on the sampling frame used in the Namibia Population and Housing Census preceding the NDHS (1991, 2001 and 2011). Individual households were selected using systematic sampling [18, 20, 21]. A trained team of interviewers using standardised pre-tested household, women’s and men’s questionnaires (translated into six local languages) collected data for all surveys [18, 20, 21].

This study used data for households and women aged 15–49 years from the three surveys: 6849 households and 7308 women from 2000; 9970 households and 10,352 women from 2006 to 2007; and 11,004 households and 9940 women from 2013. The household response rate was 96.9% in 2000, 92.3% in 2006–2007 and 97% in 2013; individual response rates for women were 92.4, 94.7 and 92%, respectively. In the 5 years preceding each survey, 3989 (2000), 5168 (2006–2007) and 5046 (2013) participating women had given birth; 1707, 2206 and 2122 children were younger than 24 months (Additional file 1: Figure S1). The present analysis included children younger than 24 months who were singleton live births (2000, n = 1655; 2006–2007, n = 2152; 2013, n = 2062). Detailed information on NDHS data sources, survey settings and sampling strategies have been described elsewhere [18, 20, 21].

Measures

Outcome variable

The main study outcome was EIBF, which was assessed among children younger than 24 months. EIBF is defined as putting a newborn baby to the breast within 1 h of birth [22]. The NDHS assessed EIBF by asking respondents, ‘How long after birth did you first put (last born child’s name) to the breast?’ [18, 20, 21]. Responses were categorised into those who started breastfeeding within 1-h of birth and more than 1-h after birth.

Explanatory variables

We reviewed previously published studies on factors associated with EIBF to identify potential confounders, which were classified as maternal, obstetric and child-related factors. Maternal factors included age (< 20 years, 20–34 years, ≥35 years) [15, 23], marital status (never married, married/cohabiting, widowed/divorced/separated), residence (urban or rural), education (no formal, primary, secondary, tertiary), occupation and household wealth [13, 15, 24, 25]. Maternal occupation was categorised as paid work (skilled/unskilled manual work, clerical, blue collar), agriculture (paid and unpaid agricultural work) and unemployed (not working, housewives, domestic work) [25]. Household wealth was categorised in quintiles (1–poorest; 5–richest) [26], generated from wealth scores calculated using principal component analysis of household assets [27].

Obstetric factors included antenatal care (ANC) visits (0, 1–3, ≥4, do not remember) [3, 28], place of delivery (health facility or home/other) [3], delivery mode (vaginal or caesarean section) [29] and assistance during delivery (health professional, traditional birth attendants [TBAs], self/relatives) [24]. Child-related factors were sex [13], birth size (small, average, large) [25] and birth order (1, 2–3, ≥4) [24].

Statistical analysis

Data were checked for completeness and consistency. Statistical analyses on complete cases were performed with STATA version 13.1 excluding 111 (6.7%), 209 (9.7%) and 155 (7.5%) children who had missing data on the outcome variable for 2000, 2006–2007 and 2013 surveys, respectively. We used frequencies and percentages to report sample characteristics and EIBF trends, and chi-square tests to assess associations between explanatory variables and EIBF in each survey. Simple and hierarchical multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess factors associated with EIBF in each survey. To allow comparability across the surveys, variables in all three surveys with a p-value > 0.25 in univariable regression analyses were excluded from the multivariable analyses [30]. Maternal, obstetric, and child-related factors were first included in the model separately and then together in a final model. We also adjusted for the sampling weight and cluster design of the surveys [31] and reported unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Respondents’ characteristics

Table 1 outlines the children’s and mothers’ characteristics. The proportion of teenage mothers decreased from 11.4% in 2000 to 10.8% in 2013, and that of mothers living in urban areas increased from 33.2% in 2000 to 47.6% in 2013. Mothers with no education decreased from 13.3% in 2000 to 5.5% in 2013, and rates of secondary education increased from 49.1% in 2000 to 66.7% in 2013. The proportion of health facility deliveries increased from 76.9% in 2000 to 88.5% in 2013. Delivery assistance from TBAs decreased from 2.2% in 2000 to 0.5% in 2013. In addition, the proportion of mothers delivering via caesarean section increased from 12.2% in 2006–2007 to 15.6% in 2013. The proportion of male babies decreased from 50.7% in 2000 to 48.3% in 2013, and that of large-sized babies increased from 30.4% in 2000 to 38.6% in 2013.

Table 1.

Respondents’ characteristics

2000 2006–2007 2013
Characteristics n % n % n %
Age, years
 15–19 189 11.4 252 11.5 222 10.8
 20–34 1124 69.0 1508 71.6 1436 71.0
 35–49 297 19.6 355 16.9 381 18.2
Residence
 Urban 604 33.2 783 40.3 910 47.6
 Rural 1006 66.8 1332 59.7 1129 52.4
Marital status
 Never married 664 44.4 944 44.9 1021 51.3
 Married/cohabiting 841 49.9 1080 50.6 931 44.8
 Divorced/separated/widow 105 5.7 90 4.6 87 3.9
Education
 No education 268 13.3 250 10.7 155 5.5
 Primary 555 35.2 626 27.9 470 22.0
 Secondary 751 49.1 1164 57.1 1327 66.7
 Higher education 36 2.4 75 4.3 87 5.7
Occupation
 Not working 1034 66.2 1052 49.2 1203 57.1
 Agriculture 66 5.8 269 12.6 36 1.4
 Paid work 503 28.1 778 38.2 798 41.4
Wealth, quintiles
 Poorest 340 23.8 422 19.8 410 21.3
 Poorer 298 21.9 451 20.8 410 20.3
 Average 317 19.5 392 19.1 397 19.1
 Richer 318 17.3 417 21.1 408 18.7
 Richest 316 17.5 418 19.3 403 20.6
ANC attendance, visits
 0 113 6.1 86 3.9 82 3.2
 1–3 285 18.3 378 17.7 279 13.1
  ≥ 4 1031 68.2 1451 71.3 1237 62.5
 Do not remember 138 7.3 140 7.1 390 21.3
Place of delivery
 Health facility 1211 76.9 1704 81.9 1761 88.5
 Home/others 393 23.1 410 18.1 277 11.5
Delivery mode
 Vaginal – – 1891 87.8 1741 84.4
 Caesarean – – 220 12.2 295 15.6
Parity
 1 470 29.9 666 32.0 625 31.7
 2–3 630 38.3 904 43.0 860 42.7
 4+ 510 31.9 545 25.0 554 25.6
Assistance during labour
 Health professional 1396 90.0 1944 94.5 1896 96.2
 TBAs 32 2.2 28 1.3 15 0.5
 Relatives/self 136 7.8 94 4.2 84 3.3
Birth order
 1 482 30.4 683 32.6 643 32.5
 2–3 622 38.0 890 42.5 845 42.1
 4+ 506 31.6 542 24.9 551 25.5
Baby’s sex
 Male 807 50.7 1104 52.1 990 48.3
 Female 803 49.3 1011 47.9 1049 51.7
Baby’s birth size
 Large 464 30.4 739 35.7 779 38.6
 Average 844 53.1 1033 48.5 886 43.3
 Small 291 16.5 337 15.7 392 18.1
Open in a new tab

ANC antenatal care, TBAs traditional birth attendants

EIBF trends in Namibia

Namibia experienced a decline in the EIBF rate between 2000 and 2013. The weighted percentage of babies who were breastfed within 1 h of birth decreased significantly from 82.5% (95% CI: 79.5–85.0) in 2000 to 74.9% (95% CI: 72.5–77.2) in 2013. However, the change from 2006–2007 (72.8, 95% CI: 70.2–75.2) to 2013 was not significant.

Table 2 illustrates EIBF rates by mother and child characteristics. In all three surveys, there were equal proportions of EIBF among male and female babies, and EIBF rates were higher among mothers who lived in urban areas, delivered vaginally and in health facilities and had four or more ANC visits. EIBF was significantly associated with birth size (2000 and 2006–2007), delivery mode (2006–2007 and 2013), and occupation and marital status (2013).

Table 2.

Rates of early initiation of breastfeeding in Namibia (2000, 2006–2007 and 2013) by demographic and socioeconomic characteristics

Characteristics 2000 2006–2007 2013 Percentage difference
% 95% CI p-valuea % 95% CI p-valuea % 95% CI p-valuea 2000–2006b 2006–2013b 2000–2013b
Age, years
 15–19 8.9 7.2–10.8 7.9 6.7–9.4 9.1 7.7–10.6 −1 1.2 0.2
 20–34 58.2 54.4–61.9 0.143 53.1 50.4–55.8 0.057 52.7 50.0–55.3 0.160 −5.1 −0.4 −5.5
 35–49 15.4 13.3–17.8 11.7 10.1–13.6 13.2 11.4–15.2 −3.7 1.5 −2.2
Residence
 Rural 27.6 23.8–31.7 0.210 27.7 24.8–30.7 0.856 34.9 32.3–37.4 0.579 0.1 7.2* 7.3**
 Urban 54.8 50.9–58.7 45.1 42.5–47.8 40.1 37.4–42.8 −9.7 −5 −14.7**
Marital status
 Never married 35.8 32.3–39.4 33.2 30.5–35.9 37.1 34.4–39.7 −2.6 3.9 1.3
 Married/cohabiting 42.2 38.6–45.9 0.322 36 33.3–38.8 0.497 35.1 32.5–37.8 0.021 −6.2 −0.9 −7.1
 Divorced/separated/widow 4.4 3.4–5.8 3.6 2.7–4.7 2.8 2.0–3.8 −0.8 −0.8 −1.6
Education
 No formal 11.5 8.9–14.6 7.8 6.5–9.4 4.2 3.3–5.4 −3.7 −3.6** −7.3**
 Primary 29.1 25.6–32.8 0.805 21.3 19.4–23.5 0.542 17.3 15.3–19.4 0.071 −7.8** −4 −11.8**
 Secondary 39.9 36.4–43.4 40.6 37.8–43.4 50.0 47.1–53.0 0.7 9.4 10.1**
 Tertiary 2.0 1.2–3.3 3.0 2.0–4.5 3.4 2.4–4.9 1 0.4 1.4
Occupation
 Not working 54.3 50.7–57.8 36.6 33.9–39.4 44.2 41.4–47.1 −12.8** 1.7 −11.1**
 Agriculture 5.2 3.3–7.9 0.114 9.4 7.8–11.1 0.933 1.1 0.7–1.8 0.023 3.3 0.3 3.6
 Paid work 23.0 20.2–26.0 27.0 24.1–30.0 29.6 27.3–32.0 3.3 0.3 3.6
Wealth, quintiles
 Poorest 19.9 17.1–23.1 15.1 13.1–17.2 15.7 13.7–18.0 −4.8 0.6 −4.2
 Poorer 19.0 16.2–22.2 15.9 13.9–18.1 15.8 13.7–18.1 −3.1 −0.1 −3.2
 Average 16.0 13.1–19.5 0.378 13.5 11.6–15.7 0.624 15.0 12.9–17.2 0.198 −2.5 1.5 − 1
 Richer 13.8 11.2–16.8 14.5 12.7–16.6 14.2 12.3–16.4 0.7 −0.3 0.4
 Richest 13.8 11.1–17.0 13.9 12.2–15.8 14.3 12.3–16.6 0.1 0.4 0.5
ANC attendance, visits
 0 5.4 4.0–7.3 3.1 2.3–4.3 2.6 1.9–3.5 −2.3 −0.5 −2.8**
 1–3 15.3 13.3–17.5 0.523 13.5 11.9–15.2 0.379 10.3 8.8–11.9 0.063 −1.8 −3.2 −5**
  ≥ 4 55.2 51.2–59.0 51.4 48.5–54.2 45.7 42.8–45.6 −3.8 −5.7** −9.5**
 Don’t remember 6.3 4.7–8.3 4.8 3.9–5.8 16.4 14.2–18.8 −1.5 11.6** 10.1**
Place of delivery
 Health facility 63.5 59.9–67.0 0.870 60.0 57.1–62.7 0.342 65.9 63.4–68.4 0.456 −3.5 5.9* 2.4
 Home/others 19.0 16.8–22.3 12.9 11.2–14.8 9.0 7.6–10.6 −6.1* −3.9 −10**
Delivery mode
 Vaginal – – – 66.9 64.3–69.5 < 0.001 66.2 63.6–68.7 < 0.001 −0.7
 Caesarean – – – 5.8 4.6–7.4 8.7 7.2–10.5 2.9
Parity
 1 23.3 20.9–26.0 23.6 21.2–26.3 23.9 21.8–26.2 0.3 0.3 0.6
 2–3 33.0 30.4–35.7 0.093 30.9 28.6–33.2 0.466 31.3 29.0–33.7 0.086 −2.1 0.4 −1.7
 4+ 26.1 23.1–29.4 18.3 16.3–20.5 19.7 17.6–22.0 −7.8 1.4 −6.4**
Delivery assistance
 Health professional 73.9 70.7–76.8 68.2 65.6–70.7 72.1 69.7–74.4 0.049 −5.7 3.9 −1.8
 TBAs 2.0 1.3–3.1 0.438 1.3 0.7–2.1 0.062 0.2 0.1–0.5 −0.7 −1.1* −1.8*
 Relative/self 6.2 4.7–8.2 3.3 2.4–4.4 2.6 2.0–3.5 −2.9 −0.7 −3.6**
Birth order
 1 23.8 21.3–26.4 23.6 21.2–26.3 23.9 21.8–26.2 0.086 −0.2 0.3 0.1
 2–3 32.8 30.2–35.6 0.111 30.9 28.6–33.2 0.466 31.3 28.9–33.7 −1.9 0.4 −1.5
 4+ 25.8 22.8–29.1 18.3 16.3–20.5 19.7 17.6–22.0 −7.5 1.4 −6.1
Baby’s sex
 Male 41.2 37.8–44.6 0.426 36.4 34.0–38.9 0.284 36.8 34.4–39.2 0.134 −4.8 0.4 −4.4
 Female 41.3 38.3–44.3 36.4 33.8–39.1 38.1 35.7–40.6 −4.9 1.7 −3.2
Baby’s birth size
 Small 23.5 20.4–26.8 24.6 22.2–27.2 28.6 26.1–31.1 1.1 4 5.1
 Average 47.2 43.5–50.9 0.001 37.7 35.2–40.4 0.008 33.6 31.0–36.3 0.090 −9.5** −4.1 −13.6**
 Large 11.7 9.7–14.0 10.4 8.8–12.1 12.8 11.0–14.9 −1.3 2.4 1.1
Open in a new tab

ANC antenatal care, CI confidence interval, TBAs traditional birth attendants

ap-value for association for each year

bPercentage point difference between survey years with a significance tests for difference in proportions; *p-value < 0.05; **p-value < 0.01

Overall, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of mothers who initiated breastfeeding early. The EIBF rate among urban mothers decreased significantly from 54.8% (95% CI: 50.9–58.7) in 2000 to 40.1% (95% CI: 37.4–42.8) in 2013. Similarly, the EIBF rate among married mothers decreased from 42.2% (95% CI: 38.6–45.9) in 2000 to 35.1% (95% CI: 32.5–37.8) in 2013. There was a decrease in EIBF among working mothers from 57.4% (95% CI: 54.0–60.8) in 2000 to 46.3% (95% CI: 43.5–49.2) in 2013. EIBF among mothers with a secondary education increased from 39.9% (95% CI: 36.4–43.4) in 2000 to 50% (95% CI: 47.1–53.0) in 2013 (Table 2).

Factors associated with EIBF in Namibia

In the bivariate analysis, EIBF was significantly associated with birth order and birth size in 2000, birth size, maternal age, and delivery mode in 2006–2007 and birth size, birth order, delivery assistance by TBAs, delivery mode, ANC, occupation, wealth, education and marital status in 2013 (Table 3).

Table 3.

Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses of factors associated with early initiation of breastfeeding

2000 2006–2007 2013
Characteristics COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Age, years
 15–19 0.91 (0.51–1.63) 1.10 (0.53–2.31) 0.87 (0.57–1.34) 1.00 (0.57–1.75) 1.56 (0.96–2.56) 2.28 (1.22–4.24)*
 20–34 1.38 (0.89–2.15) 1.55 (0.91–2.62) 1.26 (0.94–1.69) 1.49 (1.07–2.08)* 1.05 (0.76–1.46) 1.30 (0.90–1.87)
 35–49 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Residence
 Rural 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Urban 0.74 (0.46–1.19) 0.58 (0.36–0.93)* 1.03 (0.77–1.36) 0.89 (0.64–1.24) 1.07 (0.84–1.38) 0.93 (0.68–1.26)
Marital status
 Never married 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Married/cohabiting 1.29 (0.86–1.94) 1.23 (0.73–2.07) 0.99 (0.78–1.27) 0.94 (0.72–1.24) 1.44 (1.10–1.90)* 1.57 (1.16–2.14)*
 Divorced/separated 0.93 (0.47–1.81) 0.96 (0.47–1.96) 1.44 (0.78–2.64) 1.41 (0.75–2.65) 1.09 (0.59–2.01) 1.11 (0.60–2.03)
Education
 Tertiary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Secondary 0.96 (0.38–2.47) 0.90 (0.32–2.51) 1.11 (0.55–2.26) 0.86 (0.37–1.99) 1.75 (0.98–3.11) 1.22 (0.51–2.19)
 Primary 0.98 (0.41–2.39) 0.89 (0.32–2.43) 1.35 (0.66–2.76) 1.03 (0.43–2.48) 1.95 (1.07–3.56)* 1.06 (0.51–2.19)
 No formal 1.23 (0.46–3.23) 0.95 (0.31–2.88) 1.28 (0.62–2.67) 0.93 (0.37–2.38) 2.31 (1.14–4.68)* 1.21 (0.51–2.86)
Occupation
 Paid work 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Agriculture 4.03 (0.98–16.5) 2.87 (0.69–11.9) 1.01 (0.71–1.43) 0.91 (0.62–1.35) 1.62 (0.62–4.24) 1.55 (0.58–4.11)
 Not working 1.03 (0.66–1.56) 1.05 (0.69–1.60) 1.04 (0.77–1.41) 0.98 (0.72–1.34) 1.36 (1.07–174)* 1.27 (0.97–1.66)
Wealth
 Richest 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Richer 0.87 (0.56–1.35) 0.91 (0.54–1.51) 0.90 (0.63–1.29) 0.87 (0.60–1.26) 1.51 (1.04–2.02)* 1.35 (0.90–2.03)
 Average 1.30 (0.81–2.10) 1.52 (0.86–2.68) 0.94 (0.68–1.30) 0.93 (0.65–1.33) 1.47 (0.98–2.20) 1.22 (0.78–1.91)
 Poorer 1.36 (0.82–2.22) 1.82 (1.05–3.17)* 1.14 (0.79–1.64) 1.07 (0.73–1.58) 1.33 (0.93–1.92) 1.02 (0.67–1.56)
 Poorest 1.13 (0.70–1.81) 1.52 (0.89–2.57) 1.13 (0.76–1.68) 1.08 (0.70–1.66) 1.26 (0.86–1.85) 0.94 (0.59–1.48)
ANC attendance, visits
 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 1–3 0.69 (0.28–1.70) 0.19 (0.04–1.05) 0.81 (0.44–1.52) 1.02 (0.12–8.55) 0.62 (0.30–1.26) 0.17 (0.01–3.16)
 4+ 0.57 (0.25–1.29) 0.14 (0.03–0.81)* 0.67 (0.37–1.20) 0.85 (0.10–7.09) 0.45 (0.24–0.84)* 0.14 (0.01–2.51)
 Do not remember 0.67 (0.22–2.05) 0.18 (0.03–1.21) 0.65 (0.34–1.28) 0.79 (0.09–6.65) 0.57 (0.29–1.14) 0.16 (0.01–3.09)
Place of delivery
 Home/others 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Health facility 1.03 (0.70–1.53) 1.33 (0.86–2.07) 1.13 (0.87–1.47) 1.53 (1.10–2.14)* 0.88 (0.63–1.23) 1.25 (0.83–1.90)
Delivery modea
 Caesarean – – 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Vaginal – – 2.53 (1.75–3.68)** 2.58 (1.68–3.97)** 2.84 (2.03–3.97)** 2.74 (1.90–3.93)**
Delivery assistance
 TBAs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Health professional 0.47 (0.15–1.47) 0.48 (0.14–1.61) 0.32 (0.10–1.01) 0.19 (0.04–0.91)* 3.60 (1.09–11.8)* 3.67 (1.23–10.9)*
 Relative/self 0.44 (0.13–1.47) 0.13 (0.02–0.81) 0.47 (0.13–1.71) 0.30 (0.02–4.30) 5.31 (1.36–20.7)* 0.99 (0.05–20.7)
Birth order
 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 2–3 1.50 (1.01–2.23)* 1.36 (0.87–2.12) 1.13 (0.85–1.50) 0.99 (0.69–1.43) 1.08 (0.83–1.40) 1.16 (0.86–1.56)
 4+ 1.10 (0.74–1.64) 1.20 (0.67–2.15) 1.21 (0.86–1.72) 1.23 (0.78–1.95) 1.42 (1.03–1.97)* 1.52 (1.03–2.26)*
Baby’s birth size
 Average 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 Small 0.39 (0.24–0.63)** 0.38 (0.24–0.60)** 0.64 (0.44–0.93)* 0.63 (0.44–0.90)* 0.71 (0.51–0.99)* 0.72 (0.65–1.01)
 Large 0.55 (0.37–0.79)* 0.51 (0.34–0.78)* 0.67 (0.51–0.90)* 0.69 (0.51–0.94)* 0.83 (0.64–1.07) 0.86 (0.52–1.13)
Open in a new tab

aDelivery mode was not available for the 2000 NDHS. However, this was measured in the later surveys

AOR adjusted odds ratio, CI confidence interval, COR crude odds ratio (unadjusted odds ratio), NDHS Namibia Demographic Health Survey, TBAs traditional birth attendants **p-value < 0.001 *p-value < 0.05

The multivariate analysis showed that in 2000, the odds of EIBF were 82% higher among mothers in households with a poorer wealth index compared with richer households (AOR 1.82, 95% CI: 1.05–3.17). In addition, mothers in rural areas had 42% (AOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36–0.93) reduced odds of EIBF compared with urban mothers. Mothers who attended the recommended four or more ANC visits had 86% (AOR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.03–0.81) reduced odds of EIBF compared with those not attending ANC. In 2006–2007, the odds of EIBF were 49% higher among mothers aged 20–34 years compared with those aged ≥35 years, 53% higher among health facility deliveries compared with home deliveries and 2.58 times higher among those who had a vaginal delivery compared with a caesarean section. In 2013, mothers aged 15–19 years (AOR 2.28, 95% CI: 1.22–4.24), married mothers (AOR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.16–2.14) and those who had a vaginal delivery (AOR 2.74, 95% CI: 1.90–3.93) had higher odds of EIBF compared with older women, unmarried women and those who had a caesarean section, respectively. Babies with a birth order of fourth or above had 52% increased odds of EIBF compared with first-born babies (AOR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.03–2.26). In 2006–2007, health professional-assisted deliveries had 81% reduced odds of EIBF compared with TBAs-assisted delivery (AOR 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04–0.91). In contrast, the odds of EIBF among health professional-assisted deliveries in 2013 were 3.67 times higher compared with TBAs-assisted deliveries (AOR 3.67, 95% CI: 1.23–10.9) (Table 3).

Discussion

The WHO classifies EIBF rates as poor (0–29%), fair (30–49%), good (50–89%) and very good (90–100%) [2]. The EIBF rate in Namibia is still considered good despite the significant decline from 82.5% in 2000 to 74.9% in 2013. This trend is similar to those witnessed in other middle-income countries such as Vietnam (62%) and Haiti (69%) [29, 32], and in lower-middle income settings (82%) [33–35]. The decline in the EIBF rate in Namibia between 2000 and 2006–2007 may be attributed to the high rates of HIV [19], insufficient health infrastructure, poor access, and ineffective and inefficient health service provision [36]. However, the slight increase in the EIBF rate between the 2006–2007 and 2013 surveys may be explained by government efforts, such as enactment of infant and young child feeding policies [36].

Our findings showed the number and nature of factors associated with EIBF varied from 2000 to 2013. Overall, this may be attributable to sociocultural and economic changes, increased rural-urban migration, improved school enrolment among girls, reduced teenage pregnancies, increased employment among women and health service use [37]. We found significant associations between EIBF and delivery mode, ANC attendance, baby’s birth size, place of residence, maternal age, marital status, delivery assistance and birth order. EIBF was also more likely among mothers who had a vaginal delivery compared with a caesarean section [13, 33, 38–40]. This may be partly explained by the increased rates of caesarean sections in 2006–2007 and 2013, effects of anaesthesia delaying the onset of lactation, associated respiratory distress among babies delivered by caesarean section [15] and healthcare professionals’ increased preoccupation with assisting mothers to stabilise rather than initiating breastfeeding [11, 41]. This highlights the need for appropriate guidelines to reduce the number of caesarean deliveries and educate mothers about the negative association between pre-labour caesarean delivery decisions and implications for the baby’s wellbeing.

Lower ANC attendance leading to delayed initiation of breastfeeding in 2000 was consistent with previous studies [33, 42]. It is paramount to promote skilled birth attendance and baby-friendly initiatives in health facilities [22] and improve new mothers’ breastfeeding practices through nutrition education during ANC visits [43]. Findings from Nigeria and Brazil indicate EIBF was more likely among mothers who had large babies at birth [9, 14, 25, 26]. In contrast, we found that EIBF was less likely among both large- and small-sized babies between 2000 and 2006–2007 compared with average-sized babies. Small babies often have weak breastfeeding reflexes, poor coordination, and difficulty swallowing [14, 26]. This may be attributable to healthcare providers’ increased attention to stabilising the baby rather than easing the initiation of breastfeeding [26]. Existing literature also shows that both mothers and healthcare providers perceive large babies as healthy, leading to EIBF [26].

We found EIBF was more likely among urban mothers compared with rural mothers, which was consistent with previous studies [14, 44]. This may be explained by higher ANC attendance rates, increased levels of employment and higher education levels among mothers living in urban areas. Urban women may also have increased access to information, leading to higher EIBF rates [45]. However, in 2013, place of residence was no longer a significant factor. This may be because of increased urbanisation and service provision to various parts of the country [20].

Younger women and adolescents had increased odds of initiating breastfeeding within the one-hour post-delivery period, which was similar to findings from low and middle-income countries [10, 46]. This may be attributable to improved girls education, numbers of planned pregnancies and social support [32], and the intention to breastfeed and better prenatal attitude [47, 48]. Moreover, maternal age as a determinant of EIBF is largely dependent on the presence of factors such education level and residency; in the absence of those factors, age may not impact the EIBF rate [10]. Other factors associated with EIBF included marital status and birth order. EIBF was more likely among married mothers and babies born into large families, which may be because of psychosocial support from family [49]. Multiparous women also have an increased level of knowledge and experience, and EIBF may, therefore, be more likely.

We did not find a significant association between socioeconomic status and EIBF, which was consistent with a study on trends and determinants of EIBF in Vietnam [29, 44]. Education, occupation, and wealth were not significantly associated with EIBF, except in 2000 where women in the poorer quintile had increased odds of EIBF. This finding may show the diminishing influence of socioeconomic factors on the uptake of health services and health information in Namibia. However, our finding differs from reports from Ethiopia [13] and Ireland [50] that showed EIBF was more likely among employed women, and from Indonesia [12] where it was less likely among women from wealthy households.

Strengths and limitations

The use of publicly available, nationally representative data in this study allows our findings to be generalised to Namibia. However, our study has some limitations and caution is needed in interpreting the results. First, data collection for our main outcome relied on respondents’ recall, meaning there is a likelihood of recall bias. Existing literature shows that overestimation or underestimation of EIBF is possible because of the mothers’ inability to assess time in minutes or hours [51]. Moreover, it has been found that a mother’s response to the question on when they first put their baby to the breast ‘was related to the first time the newborn received breast milk rather than their first attempt to initiate breastfeeding’ [51]. Second, data on delivery mode were not available before 2006–2007. Thus, we could not assess the trends and association of delivery mode and EIBF in 2000, but the later years showed a consistent pattern. Lastly, causality cannot be inferred as this was a cross-sectional study.

Policy and practice implications

UNICEF and WHO are implementing a global initiative to improve breastfeeding outcomes with a goal of improving the average EIBF rate to 70% globally [1]. Namibia has achieved this target because of government commitment through the implementation of policies and programmes (e.g. Food and Nutrition Policy for Namibia, National Policy on Infant and Young Child Feeding, Food and Nutrition Guidelines) and a focus on accelerating the achievement of better child health indicators since 1993 [52]. However, the EIBF rate has declined over the recent years, eroding the gains of various programmes and policies. There is a need for increased focus on reviewing existing breastfeeding policies and ensuring full implementation of relevant breastfeeding policies and programmes such as BMFI to accelerate progress towards reversing this trend of declining EIBF in Namibia and contribute to achieving the sustainable development goals 3 on health.

Conclusion

Namibia experienced a declining trend in the EIBF rate from 2000 to 2013. Factors associated with EIBF also changed over the years. In 2000, urban residence, poorer women, ANC attendance and baby’s birth size were associated with EIBF. Associated factors in 2013 were maternal age, marital status, caesarean section, TBA-assisted delivery, and birth order. These findings suggest there is a need for renewed commitment to promote breastfeeding in Namibia to reverse the trend of declining EIBF.

Additional file

Additional file 1: (69.9KB, docx)

Figure S1. Flow diagram showing how the sample was obtained, provides information on the survey years, the number of households surveyed and the response rate both at the household level and for the women, detailing the number of births in the preceding 5 years, babies aged < 24 months old and the singleton babies. (DOCX 69 kb)

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Dr. O’Brien Kyololo, Kevin Momanyi and Richard Kalisa for reviewing an earlier version of this paper, the Demographic and Health Survey Programme for allowing us access to the data and Audrey Holmes for editing and proofreading drafts of the manuscripts.

Availability of data and materials

The NDHS data and materials used in this study are available for free and on request on the Demographic and Health Survey website at www.dhsprogram.com.

Abbreviations

ANC

Antenatal care

AOR

Adjusted odds ratio

BMFI

Baby Mother-Friendly Initiative

CI

Confidence interval

COR

Crude odds ratio

EIBF

Early initiation of breastfeeding

HIV

Human immunodeficiency virus

MDGs

Millennium development goals

NDHS

Namibia Demographic Health Survey

OR

Odds ratio

TBAs

Traditional birth attendants

UNICEF

United Nations Children’s Fund

WHO

World Health Organisation

Authors’ contributions

SMG, MNN, HMM and DCK conceptualised and designed the study; SMG obtained the data and MNN and SMG analysed and wrote the first draft. HMM and DCK interpreted the results and critically revised earlier drafts of the manuscript. SMG, MNN, HMM and DCK approved the last version of the manuscript and are accountable for all aspects of the work.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Data used for this study were accessed through the Demographic and Health Survey website after completion of a user’s agreement and granting of access. NDHS sought the necessary ethical approvals before survey data collection from the University of Namibia Research and Ethics Committee and the Human Research Committee of the ICF Macro International. All interviewed respondents gave informed consent and publicly available data were anonymised [18, 20, 21].

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-1811-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Contributor Information

M. N. Ndirangu, Email: ndiranguh.michael@gmail.com

S. M. Gatimu, Email: gatimu.maina@gmail.com, Email: samwel.gatimu@aku.edu

H. M. Mwinyi, Email: masudhakima87@gmail.com

D. C. Kibiwott, Email: dchebet2000@gmail.com

References

  • 1.United Nations Children’s Fund . 2017: Tracking Progress for Breastfeeding Policies and Programmes. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organization (WHO); 2017. World Health Organization: Global Breastfeeding Scorecard. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization . Infant and young child feeding: a tool for assessing national practices, policies and programmes. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tang L, Binns CW, Lee AH, Pan X, Chen S, Yu C. Low prevalence of breastfeeding initiation within the first hour of life in a rural area of Sichuan Province. Birth. 2013;40(2):134–142. doi: 10.1111/birt.12038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Exavery A, Kante AM, Hingora A, Phillips JF. Determinants of early initiation of breastfeeding in rural Tanzania. Int Breastfeed J. 2015;10(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s13006-015-0052-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Victora CG, Bahl R, Barros AJD, França GVA, Horton S, Krasevec J, Murch S, Sankar MJ, Walker N, Rollins NC. Breastfeeding in the 21st century: epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. Lancet. 2016;387(10017):475–490. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01024-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Eglash A, Montgomery A, Wood J. Breastfeeding. Dis Mon. 2008;54(6):343–411. doi: 10.1016/j.disamonth.2008.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Debes AK, Kohli A, Walker N, Edmond K, Mullany LC. Time to initiation of breastfeeding and neonatal mortality and morbidity: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(Suppl 3):S19. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-S3-S19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.NEOVITA Study Group Timing of initiation, patterns of breastfeeding, and infant survival: prospective analysis of pooled data from three randomised trials. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(4):e266–e275. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(16)00040-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Adewuyi EO, Zhao Y, Khanal V, Auta A, Bulndi LB. Rural-urban differences on the rates and factors associated with early initiation of breastfeeding in Nigeria: further analysis of the Nigeria demographic and health survey, 2013. Int Breastfeed J. 2017;12:51. doi: 10.1186/s13006-017-0141-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Takahashi K, Ganchimeg T, Ota E, Vogel JP, Souza JP, Laopaiboon M, Castro CP, Jayaratne K, Ortiz-Panozo E, Lumbiganon P, et al. Prevalence of early initiation of breastfeeding and determinants of delayed initiation of breastfeeding: secondary analysis of the WHO global survey. Sci Rep. 2017;7:44868. doi: 10.1038/srep44868. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tilahun G, Degu G, Azale T, Tigabu A. Prevalence and associated factors of timely initiation of breastfeeding among mothers at Debre Berhan town, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Int Breastfeed J. 2016;11:27. doi: 10.1186/s13006-016-0086-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Titaley CR, Loh PC, Prasetyo S, Ariawan I, Shankar AH. Socio-economic factors and use of maternal health services are associated with delayed initiation and non-exclusive breastfeeding in Indonesia: secondary analysis of Indonesia demographic and health surveys 2002/2003 and 2007. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2014;23(1):91–104. doi: 10.6133/apjcn.2014.23.1.18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lakew Y, Tabar L, Haile D. Socio-medical determinants of timely breastfeeding initiation in Ethiopia: evidence from the 2011 nation wide demographic and health survey. Int Breastfeed J. 2015;10:24. doi: 10.1186/s13006-015-0050-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Berde AS, Yalcin SS. Determinants of early initiation of breastfeeding in Nigeria: a population-based study using the 2013 demograhic and health survey data. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:32. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0818-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Liben ML, Yesuf EM. Determinants of early initiation of breastfeeding in Amibara district, northeastern Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. Int Breastfeed J. 2016;11(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s13006-016-0067-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Namibia Ministry of Health and Social Services, United Nations Children's Fund Namibia . Towards a baby and mother friendly nation: Guidelines for implemention of the Baby and Mother Friendly Initiative. Windhoek: Ministry of Health and Social Services; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.United Nations Children’s Fund: Current status of baby-friendly hospital initiative march 2002. In. New York, United Nations Children’s Fund; 2002.
  • 18.Namibia Ministry of Health and Social Services . Namibia Demographic and Health Survey 2000. Windhoek: Ministry of Health and Social Services; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Namibia Ministry of Health and Social Services . Surveillance Report of the 2016 National HIV Sentinel Survey. Windhoek: Ministry of Health and Social Services; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Namibia Ministry of Health and Social Services . Namibia Demographic and Health Survey 2013. Windhoek and Rockville: Ministry of Health and Social Services and ICF International; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Namibia Ministry of Health and Social Services . Namibia Demographic and Health Survey 2006–07. Windhoek and Calverton: Ministry of Health and Social Services and ICF International; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.World Health Organisation, United Nations Children’s Fund . Global strategy for infant and young child feeding. Geneva: World Health Organisation and United Nations Children's Fund; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dennis C-L. Breastfeeding initiation and duration: a 1990-2000 literature review. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2002;31(1):12–32. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 24.Alebel A, Dejenu G, Mullu G, Abebe N, Gualu T, Eshetie S. Timely initiation of breastfeeding and its association with birth place in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Breastfeed J. 2017;12:44. doi: 10.1186/s13006-017-0133-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Adhikari M, Khanal V, Karkee R, Gavidia T. Factors associated with early initiation of breastfeeding among Nepalese mothers: further analysis of Nepal demographic and health survey, 2011. Int Breastfeed J. 2014;9(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s13006-014-0021-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Vieira TO, Vieira GO, Giugliani ER, Mendes CM, Martins CC, Silva LR. Determinants of breastfeeding initiation within the first hour of life in a Brazilian population: cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(1):760. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Howe LD, Hargreaves JR, Huttly SR. Issues in the construction of wealth indices for the measurement of socio-economic position in low-income countries. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2008;5:3. doi: 10.1186/1742-7622-5-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Khanal V, Scott JA, Lee AH, Karkee R, Binns CW. Factors associated with early initiation of breastfeeding in western Nepal. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(8):9562–9574. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120809562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bui QT-T, Lee H-Y, Le AT-K, Van Dung D, Vu LT-H. Trends and determinants for early initiation of and exclusive breastfeeding under six months in Vietnam: results from the multiple Indicator cluster surveys, 2000–2011. Glob Health Action. 2016;9(1):29433. doi: 10.3402/gha.v9.29433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zhang Z. Model building strategy for logistic regression: purposeful selection. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(6):111. doi: 10.21037/atm.2016.02.15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.West BT. Statistical and methodological issues in the analysis of complex sample survey data: practical guidance for trauma researchers. J Trauma Stress. 2008;21(5):440–447. doi: 10.1002/jts.20356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yilmaz E, Yilmaz Z, Isik H, Gultekin IB, Timur H, Kara F, Kucukozkan T. Factors associated with breastfeeding initiation and exclusive breastfeeding rates in Turkish adolescent mothers. Breastfeed Med. 2016; [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 33.Kalisa R, Malande O, Nankunda J, Tumwine JK. Magnitude and factors associated with delayed initiation of breastfeeding among mothers who deliver in Mulago hospital, Uganda. Afr Health Sci. 2015;15(4):1130–1135. doi: 10.4314/ahs.v15i4.11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wolde T, Chogo M, Bariso G, Dinka O, Abire O, Asfaw Se, Assen S, Ejeta E, Birhanu T, Nekemte E. Assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice of lactating mothers on complementary feeding in Jimma Arjo Town, Eastern Wollega Zone, Western Ethiopia. Assessment. 2015;36:71–7.
  • 35.Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Health, National AIDS Control Council, Kenya Medical Research Institute, National Council for Population and Development, ICF International . Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2014. Nairobi and Rockville: KNBS, MoH, NACC, KEMRI, NCPD and ICF; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.World Health Organisation Regional Office for Africa. Issues and challenges - Progress on the Health-Related MDGs. 2018. http://www.aho.afro.who.int/profiles_information/index.php/Namibia:Issues_and_challenges_-_Progress_on_the_Health-Related_MDGs. Accessed 1 Feb 2018.
  • 37.World Health Organisation Regional Office for Africa. Accelerating achievement of MDGs 4 AND 5: PARMaCM launched in Namibia. 2013. http://www.afro.who.int/news/accelerating-achievement-mdgs-4-and-5-parmacm-launched-namibia. Accessed 1 Feb 2018.
  • 38.Wallwiener S, Muller M, Doster A, Plewniok K, Wallwiener CW, Fluhr H, Feller S, Brucker SY, Wallwiener M, Reck C. Predictors of impaired breastfeeding initiation and maintenance in a diverse sample: what is important? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;294(3):455–466. doi: 10.1007/s00404-015-3994-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Watt S, Sword W, Sheehan D, Foster G, Thabane L, Krueger P, Landy CK. The effect of delivery method on breastfeeding initiation from the the Ontario mother and infant study (TOMIS) III. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2012;41(6):728–737. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2012.01394.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Albokhary AA, James JP. Does cesarean section have an impact on the successful initiation of breastfeeding in Saudi Arabia? Saudi Med J. 2014;35(11):1400. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hobbs AJ, Mannion CA, McDonald SW, Brockway M, Tough SC. The impact of caesarean section on breastfeeding initiation, duration and difficulties in the first four months postpartum. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:90. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0876-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Patel A, Bucher S, Pusdekar Y, Esamai F, Krebs NF, Goudar SS, Chomba E, Garces A, Pasha O, Saleem S. Rates and determinants of early initiation of breastfeeding and exclusive breast feeding at 42 days postnatal in six low and middle-income countries: a prospective cohort study. Reprod Health. 2015;12(2):S10. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-12-S2-S10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tariku A, Alemu K, Gizaw Z, Muchie KF, Derso T, Abebe SM, Yitayal M, Fekadu A, Ayele TA, Alemayehu GA. Mothers' education and ANC visit improved exclusive breastfeeding in Dabat health and demographic surveillance system site, Northwest Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179056. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Thu HN, Eriksson B, Khanh TT, Petzold M, Bondjers G, Kim CN, Thanh LN, Ascher H. Breastfeeding practices in urban and rural Vietnam. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):964. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-964. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mdala JF, Mash R. Causes of mortality and associated modifiable health care factors for children (< 5-years) admitted at Onandjokwe hospital, Namibia. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2015;7(1):1–8. doi: 10.4102/phcfm.v7i1.840. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Beyene MG, Geda NR, Habtewold TD, Assen ZM. Early initiation of breastfeeding among mothers of children under the age of 24 months in southern Ethiopia. Int Breastfeed J. 2016;12:1. doi: 10.1186/s13006-016-0096-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sipsma HL, Magriples U, Divney A, Gordon D, Gabzdyl E, Kershaw T. Breastfeeding behavior among adolescents: initiation, duration, and exclusivity. J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(3):394–400. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.04.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mossman M, Heaman M, Dennis CL, Morris M. The influence of adolescent mothers' breastfeeding confidence and attitudes on breastfeeding initiation and duration. J Hum Lact. 2008;24(3):268–277. doi: 10.1177/0890334408316075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Adewuyi E, Adefemi K. Breastfeeding in Nigeria: a systematic review. Int J Commun Med Public Health. 2017;3(2):385–96.
  • 50.Gallagher L, Begley C, Clarke M. Determinants of breastfeeding initiation in Ireland. Ir J Med Sci. 2016;185(3):663–668. doi: 10.1007/s11845-015-1333-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Salasibew MM, Filteau S, Marchant T. Measurement of breastfeeding initiation: Ethiopian mothers' perception about survey questions assessing early initiation of breastfeeding. Int Breastfeed J. 2014;9:13. doi: 10.1186/1746-4358-9-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.International Baby Food Action Network Geneva Infant Feeding Association (IBFAN-GIFA). Report on the situation of infant and young child feeding in Namibia. 2012. http://www.ibfan.org/art/CRC_61-Namibia-2012.pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2018.

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Additional file 1: (69.9KB, docx)

Figure S1. Flow diagram showing how the sample was obtained, provides information on the survey years, the number of households surveyed and the response rate both at the household level and for the women, detailing the number of births in the preceding 5 years, babies aged < 24 months old and the singleton babies. (DOCX 69 kb)

Data Availability Statement

The NDHS data and materials used in this study are available for free and on request on the Demographic and Health Survey website at www.dhsprogram.com.

Articles from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES