Background
Aim
Methods
PubMed | - “baby led weaning” OR “baby led weaning choking” OR “self-weaning” ((“infant, newborn”[MeSH Terms] OR (“infant”[All Fields] AND “newborn”[All Fields]) OR “newborn infant”[All Fields] OR “baby”[All Fields] OR “infant”[MeSH Terms] OR “infant”[All Fields]) AND led[All Fields] AND (“weaning”[MeSH Terms] OR “weaning”[All Fields]) AND (“airway obstruction”[MeSH Terms] OR (“airway”[All Fields] AND “obstruction”[All Fields]) OR “airway obstruction”[All Fields] OR “choking”[All Fields])) OR ((“infant, newborn”[MeSH Terms] OR (“infant”[All Fields] AND “newborn”[All Fields]) OR “newborn infant”[All Fields] OR “baby”[All Fields] OR “infant”[MeSH Terms] OR “infant”[All Fields]) AND led[All Fields] AND (“weaning”[MeSH Terms] OR “weaning”[All Fields])) OR “self-weaning”[All Fields] AND (“2000/01/01”[PDAT] “March 1, 2018”[PDAT]) |
EMBASE | - “baby led weaning” OR “baby-led weaning” OR “self-weaning” OR “autoweaning” ((‘baby led weaning’/exp. OR ‘baby led weaning’) OR (‘baby led’ AND (‘weaning’/exp. OR weaning)) OR (‘self weaning’) OR (autoweaning)) AND [2000–2018]/py |
Results
Reference | Type of study | Type of data collection | Number of subjects | Age of infants | Method of weaningconsidered | Definition of baby-led weaning | Intervention | Outcomes considered |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brown and Lee, 2011 [30] | Observational (comparative cross-sectional) | Online questionnaire (self- reported) | N = 655 mothers | 6–12 months | BLW vs traditional spoon-feeding | BLW = 10% or less of puréed foods and spoon-feeding (self-reported) | / | Demographic background of mothers, timing and type of weaning, experiences of introducing solid foods to infants. |
Brown and Lee, 2011 [11] | Observational (comparative cross-sectional) | Child Feeding Questionnaire (self-reported) | N = 702 mothers | 6–12 months | BLW vs traditional spoon-feeding | BLW = using both spoon feeding and purées 10% or less (self-reported) | / | Weaning approach, Information regarding infant weight, perceived size and mothers’ level of control. |
Townsend and Pitchford, 2012 [24] | Observational (comparative cross-sectional on current and retrospective data) | Self-completed questionnaire | N = 155 parents | 20–78 months | baby-led weaning vs traditional spoon feeding | Self-reported weaning style | / | Impact of the weaning methods on food preferences and health-related outcomes (BMI) |
Cameron et al., 2013 [25] | Observational (comparative cross-sectional) | Online survey | N = 199 mothers | 6–7 months | BLW vs traditional spoon-feeding | adherent BLW = infant mostly or entirely self-feeding; self-identified BLW = mothers reporting following BLW but using at least 50% spoon-feeding;parent-led feeding= > 50% spoon-feeding | / | Comparison between the different feeding practices and selected health-related behaviours (timing and type of complementary food, mealtimes, choking, demographic information) |
Moore et al., 2014 [38] | Observational (comparative cross-sectional) | Parental online questionnaire | N = 3207 parents | 17–26 weeks | All | Self-defined | / | Factors associated with timing of weaning |
Brown and Lee, 2013 [12] | Observational (comparative cross-sectional) | self-report questionnaire | N = 298 mothers | 18–24 months | BLW vs traditional approach | BLW = 10% or less of puréed foods and spoon-feeding | / | Maternal demographic information, child eating style (satiety-responsiveness, food-responsiveness, fussiness, enjoyment of food) and reported child weight and BMI. |
Brown, 2016 [40] | Observational (comparative cross-sectional) | Maternal self-reported questionnaire, including Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire, Brief Symptom Inventory and Ten Item Personality Questionnaire | N = 604 mothers | 6–12 months | BLW vs traditional approach | BLW = 10% or less of puréed foods and spoon-feeding | / | Maternal characteristics and demographic background, weaning style, maternal personality and eating behavior |
Brown, 2017 [26] | Observational (comparative cross-sectional) | Maternal self-reported questionnaire | N = 1151 mothers | 4–12 months | BLW (strict or loose) vs traditional approach | Self-reported strict or loose BLW or traditional approach; estimated frequency of spoon-feeding (0, 10, 50, 75, 90, 100%) | / | Comparison of number of choking episodes, type of foods offered- > No significant differences in choking episodes between groups |
Cameron et al., 2015 [29] | Observational (comparative cross-sectional) | weekly interview for 12 weeks and three-day weighed record or iron questionnaires | N = 23 infants(14 BLISS, 9 BLW) | 6 months (followed until 9 months) | BLW and BLISS (Baby-Led Introduction to SolidS) | Self-defined BLW or BLISS approach | BLW group: no intervention (no feeding protocol to follow). BLISS group: 2 visits and support about the characteristics of BLISS approach. | Comparison of high energy foods, iron containing foods, high choking risk foods offered. - > the BLISS group was more likely to introduce iron containing foods and less likely to be offered high-choking-risk foods |
Morison et al., 2016 [31] | Observational (comparative cross-sectional) | Parental feeding questionnaire and weighed diet record | N = 51 infants (25 BLW, 26 traditional spoon-feeding TSF) | 6–8 months | Baby-led vs traditional spoon-feeding | Self-defined BLW or traditional approach | / | Comparison of food, nutrient and family meal intakes.- > BLW and TSF infants had similar energy intakes; BLW had higher intakes of fat and saturated fat, and lower intakes of iron, zinc and vitamin B12. Many in of both groups were offered high choking risk foods. |
Fangupo et al., 2016 [27] | RCT | Maternal report in 5 questionnaires, 2 daily calendars and 2 weighed diet records | N = 206 healthy women in late pregnancy | Newborn (followed until 12 months) | BLISS vs traditional spoon-feeding | Randomisation to either BLISS or control | Control group: free well child health care, conventional complementary feeding methods. BLISS group: 8 additional parent contacts for education and support regarding the BLISS approach to complementary feeding. | Comparison of choking and gagging- no significant group differences in n° of choking events at any time (BLISS infants gagged more frequently at 6 months but less frequently at 8 months than controls)- 35% of infants choked at least once between 6 and 8 months of age - > a large n° of children in both groups was offered foods that pose a choking risk |
Taylor et al., 2017 [32] | RCT | Questionnaires and 3-day weighed diet records | N = 206 healthy women in late pregnancy(105 BLISS, 101control) At 24 months, N = 166 | Newborn (followed until 24 months) | BLISS vs traditional spoon-feeding | Randomisation to either BLISS or control | Control group: free well child health care, conventional complementary feeding methods. BLISS group: 8 additional parent contacts for education and support regarding the BLISS approach to complementary feeding. | Primary outcome: BMI z-score at 12 and 24 months. Secondary outcomes: -energy self-regulation and eating behaviors at 6,12,24 months-energy intake at 7,12, 24 months - ≥ mean BMI z-score was not significantly different at 12 months or at 24 months- > in BLISS infants, less food fussiness and greater enjoyment of food reported at 12 months; lower satiety responsiveness at 24 months. - > no significant differences in energy intake at any point |
- Does BLW increase risk of choking?
- Does BLW determine increased risk of inadequate energy intake and growth faltering?
- Does BLW cause inadequate iron intake and suboptimal iron status?
- Which effects has the BLW approach on satiety-responsiveness and weight?
- Does BLW influence food preferences and diet quality?
- Does the baby-led approach improve family relationships during shared meals?
- Do mothers who adopt a baby-led approach differ from those who choose traditional weaning regarding the starting time of complementary feeding?
- Does BLW have positive effects on mother anxiety and attitude towards complementary feeding?
Discussion
STUDY | SELECTION (maximum 5 Stars) | COMPARABILITY (maximum 2 Stars) | OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (maximum 3 Stars) | TOTAL (maximum 10 Stars) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Brown et al. 2011 [30] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Brown et al. 2011 [11] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Townsend et al. 2012 [24] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Cameron et al. 2013 [25] | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
Moore et al., 2014 [38] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Brown et al. 2013 [12] | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
Brown 2016 [40] | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
Cameron et al. 2015 [29] | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Morison et al. 2016 [31] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Brown et al. 2017 [26] | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
Study (outcomes) | Randomization | Allocation concealment | Blinding of participants | Blinding of personnel | Blinding of assessors | Follow-up | Selective reporting | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fangupo et al. 2016 (risk of choking) [27] | Low risk | High risk | High risk | Low risk | High risk | High risk (loss 12% and 15.5% at 6 and 11 months; ITT not performed) | Low risk | Sample size not defined for primary outcome. Outcomes self-reported |
Taylor et al. 2017 (BMI, eating behavior, energy intake) [32] | Low risk | High risk | High risk | Low risk | High risk | High risk (loss 14% and 21.5% at 12 and 24 months; ITT not performed) | Low risk (but only few secondary outcomes reported from the original protocol) | Self-reporting of secondary outcomes |
Conclusions
Major unresolved issues in BLW (and requirements for further research): | • To assess safety, benefits and potential implications of a baby-led approach in terms of nutrient intakes and baby growth and the risk of choking. • To provide a more standardized definition of BLW, to better compare this approach with a traditional spoon-feeding one. • To perform an accurate quantification of energy and nutrient intakes, by researchers and family doctors themselves, to avoid the potential bias of self-reporting. • To investigate biomarkers, such as biochemical iron, vitamins or oligo-elements, to better assess if the nutritional status of the infants is adequate. • To explore the short-term and long-term impact of BLW on healthy-related outcomes, such as the correct development but also the risks for under- or over-weight, obesity in larger, randomized trials • To investigate whether BLW approach increases or not the risk of food allergic sensitizations and reactions. |
Practical advices for parents willing to follow BLW approach: | • To wait until the baby is ready: healthy infants over 6 months of age are developmentally able to self-feed; however, strong chewing skills in some children may not be fully developed until 9 months. • To inform and discuss with the family paediatrician about the approach considering both risks and possible advantages • To monitor with the paediatrician the growth parameters, especially during the first months of weaning and evaluating if supplementations are necessary (i.e. iron, vitamins, oligo-elements ..). • The foods offered should be prepared to be picked up and easily held. • Parents should be advised to avoid added salt and sugar • Meals should be cooked from scratch, without any processed foods. Cooking should be appropriate, i.e., cooking until soft • To include high-iron food, like small pieces of red meat. • To choice a variety of foods, that should gradually be introduced in a broader variety of textures, colours and shapes. • To avoid hard foods, especially small and roundly shaped like nuts and grapes due to the risk of choking. • To pay attention to the infant’s hunger and satiety cues and respond promptly. • To ensure that the child should never be left alone with foods. |