Skip to main content
Download PDF

A randomized controlled trial of the Happy, Healthy, Loved personalized text-message program for new parent couples: impact on breastfeeding self-efficacy and mood

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 24, Article number: 506 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Breastfeeding self-efficacy has been identified as an important influence on breastfeeding outcomes. Among new parent couples, partners are uniquely positioned to be sources of support for developing breastfeeding self-efficacy, yet few breastfeeding programs have attempted to involve partners directly. The purpose of this study was to test the impact of a novel program, Happy, Healthy, Loved, on breastfeeding self-efficacy and maternal mood through emphasizing partner support and actively addressing postpartum-specific stress management in a tailored text message delivery program.

Methods

A randomized trial was conducted in which primiparous mother-partner dyads intending to exclusively breastfeed were recruited at midwestern hospitals 2–3 days after delivery. The clinical trial was pre-registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT04578925, registration date 7/24/2020). Couples were randomized to receive intervention or an attentional control. Couples randomized to the intervention group then completed a brief interactive educational tablet program together (Happy, Healthy, Loved), followed by 6 weeks of tailored text messages providing reminders, coping strategies, and motivational milestones to improve breastfeeding self-efficacy. Participants in the control group received usual care followed by 6 weeks of attentional control text messages about infant development. Surveys were delivered at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6 months postpartum to both mother and partner to assess breastfeeding self-efficacy, mood, and social support (n = 62 couples).

Results

Outcomes of ANCOVA with baseline self-efficacy as a covariate showed a significant effect of intervention on 6 months breastfeeding self-efficacy when compared to control group. No other significant differences were found at 6 weeks or 6 months postpartum in breastfeeding self-efficacy, depressive or anxious symptoms.

Conclusions

Results of the present investigation suggest that a text-based dyad intervention improved breastfeeding self-efficacy at 6 months, but not 6 weeks, postpartum, indicating that text-based mother-partner interventions are a promising direction to continue exploring in postpartum health research.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT04578925.

Peer Review reports

Background

Breastfeeding’s health benefits are extensive and well established, yet exclusive breastfeeding rates remain low in the United States [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. For infants, health risks such as sudden infant death syndrome, infections, diabetes, obesity, and asthma are lower [1, 3]; for mothers, breastfeeding is associated with lower risks of breast and ovarian cancers [4]. For this reason, major health organizations, including the World Health Organization, recommend exclusive breastfeeding for at least the first 6 months postpartum [3, 5, 6]. However, exclusive breastfeeding in the US is reported by only 44.4% of women at 3 months postpartum [7]. Therefore, improving exclusive breastfeeding rates is among the nation’s health priorities outlined in Healthy People 2020 [7].

While many factors may contribute to early weaning, data suggest that, for many mothers, weaning is often involuntary [8, 9]. One of the most widely recognized risk factor for involuntary weaning is the lack of breastfeeding self-efficacy (BSE) [10]. Self-efficacy, or confidence in one’s ability to breastfeed, has been found to predict effort and perseverance through common challenges such as early latching difficulties, perceived supply concerns, and return to work [11,12,13]. The development of BSE is instantiated by four key factors: performance accomplishments in breastfeeding, exposure to other women’s breastfeeding experience, encouragement from influential others (such as partners), and physiological responses such as stress, anxiety, and fatigue [10].

Importantly, evidence suggests that BSE is a modifiable factor [14]. Two systematic reviews found that BSE interventions effectively improve exclusive breastfeeding duration; however, most interventions are delivered in one-on-one interventions with multiple contact points, which can be cost and time intensive [14, 15]. Moreover, these interventions are time limited, unable to provide dynamic support that matches the changing needs and challenges of breastfeeding across time. Mobile phone text message delivery, which has been found to be efficacious in altering other health behaviors [16], offers a cost-effective direction for increasing points of contact in future BSE interventions.

In addition to technical and instructional support for breastfeeding, the BSE framework emphasizes the positive management of stress and physiological arousal as a technique to increase breastfeeding duration. The relationship of negative emotional states or stress and breastfeeding has been well established [17, 18] and lower BSE has been associated with less effective emotion regulation strategies [19]. Neuroendocrine activity associated with reported stress and anxiety may interfere with production and letdown of milk [9, 20], while cognitive patterns such as rigid expectations and focus on self-deficiencies may result in less rewarding breastfeeding experiences, ultimately contributing to avoidance and discontinuation [21].

Effective approaches to managing stress and arousal include engaging in constructive internal dialogue and managing emotional reactions to challenges along with enhanced ability to produce calm, relaxed physiological states [22]. In the perinatal period, cognitive-behavioral theory is the basis of several efficacious programs to produce positive coping for the prevention of stress and negative emotional states, though not exclusively focused on breastfeeding outcomes [22,23,24]. Core components include cognitive strategies to foster flexible, self-compassionate, realistic interpretation of one’s self and environment, coupled with behavioral strategies to increase rewarding or meaningful activities, increase support networks, and challenge negative self-beliefs [25]. Previous randomized controlled trials suggest that cognitive behavioral coping skills can be effectively taught via internet and mobile delivery [23, 26,27,28].

While most breastfeeding interventions focus exclusively on mothers, the inclusion of co-parent partners when applicable has the potential to increase the instrumental and social-emotional benefits of any intervention. Among partnered women,Footnote 1 partners are uniquely positioned to be sources of support and influential in developing BSE during the postpartum period, yet few breastfeeding programs have attempted to involve partners directly. Developing programs involving partners is a recommended action in the Surgeon General’s report on breastfeeding, due to the important influential role of the partner [29]. Fathers’ support of breastfeeding is associated with higher rates of breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity [30, 31]. Research suggests that fathers feel willing but unprepared to support breastfeeding [32] suggesting a need for interventions directly equipping them for this role.

Current study

The primary aim of the current study is to test the efficacy of a mobile-based, mother-partner delivered intervention to improve BSE. The intervention is informed by a BSE framework, with two innovative enhancements: a) directly involving the partner as a conduit for increasing maternal self-efficacy, and b) tailored text message delivery, an approach designed to meet the specific time demands and changing needs of couples during the early postpartum period.

The current study is a randomized trial of a novel program, Happy, Healthy, Loved (HHL), designed to increase BSE through emphasizing partner support and actively addressing postpartum-specific stress management in mobile health program. It is expected that participants randomly assigned to the intervention, compared with those assigned to usual care, will report higher BSE, lower depressive symptoms, and higher perceived partner support at 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum.

Methods

Participants

Participants and their partners were recruited directly on the maternity floors of three midwestern hospitals. Participants were included if they were primiparous, at least 18 years old, living with a partner or spouse, and intending to breastfeed 6 weeks or more. Participants were excluded if they had infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, met criteria for a current depressive episode or suicide risk, were receiving antidepressant treatment or psychotherapy for depression, or did not speak, read and write English. Participant characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Participant characteristics
Full size table

Measures

Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted by the study hospital system. REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) is a secure, web-based software platform designed to support data capture for research studies [33, 34]. The following measures were used at one or more of the three data collection time points, in addition to basic demographic information.

Edinburgh postnatal depression scale [35]

The EPDS is a well-validated 10-item self-report depression screening tool in which high scores reflect more depressive symptoms within the past seven days. The EPDS has shown high sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive power for postpartum depression when using a 10 + score cutoff [36, 37]. The EPDS has also been validated as an acceptable screening tool for men in the postpartum period [38].

Breastfeeding self-efficacy scale-short form [13]

The BSES-SF has demonstrated strong reliability and validity as well as high internal consistency (α = 0.91) [39], and has been validated for use with partners of breastfeeding women as well [40].

Postpartum partner support scale [36]

The PPSS is a 24-item self-report instrument to assess partner postpartum-specific support, with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived support. This scale demonstrated reliability with mothers during the postpartum period (α = 0.96) and significantly distinguished between women with and without depressive symptoms at 8 weeks postpartum [36].

Procedures

Enrollment

All study procedures were approved by the OhioHealth Institutional Review Board (IRB#1,296,284–1). Potential participants were identified and approached by the research team during the 2–3 day postpartum hospital stay. After determining interest and eligibility, mothers and their partners provided written informed consent.

Participants (both mothers and partners) completed pre-intervention surveys, then were randomized to either the intervention or control group according to a two-group randomization table uploaded to REDCap by the study statistician prior to enrollment.

Couples randomized to the intervention group then completed a brief interactive educational tablet program (Happy, Healthy, Loved) together, followed by 6 weeks of tailored text messages. Participants in the control group received usual care followed by 6 weeks of attentional control text messages about infant development. All patients received access to a lactation consultant during the hospital stay along with an optional in-person class, instructional video, and information packet about breastfeeding.

Participants were able to opt out of the text messages at any time in the 6 weeks. All program delivery was managed through contracted partnership with a company specializing in behavioral health platforms using HIPAA-compliant procedures. Development of the initial tablet-based prototype was designed in consultation with an instructional technologist at Denison University who contributed to a user-friendly tool.

Mothers were asked via text each week “How is baby eating this week?” with three text response options: 1 (all breastmilk), 2 (breastmilk and formula), or 3 (all formula). If mothers in the intervention reported that they were no longer breastfeeding, all remaining text messages emphasized coping and partner support only rather than breastfeeding, to minimize any guilt or distress a mother may feel for discontinuing breastfeeding. This occurred automatically within the program. A summary of participant recruitment and flow is found in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study enrollment flow chart

Full size image

Intervention

Happy, Healthy, Loved (Experimental Group)

The HHL program is comprised of three topical areas delivered by tablet to both parents during the postpartum hospital stay (see Table 2 ).

Table 2 Intervention goals and activities
Full size table

The content and delivery of the text-messages are closely mapped to the content provided in the tablet-based materials, providing reminders, resources, and encouragement associated with the three areas of education. Texts were matched to mothers’ response to questions in the educational module designed to identify her strengths and preferred coping strategies. For example, a mother who identified during the initial module that walking has been a positive coping strategy for managing stress and mood in the past would get a text specifically encouraging her to make time for a walk, with or without baby. The partner would receive a corresponding text suggesting that walking is helpful for the mother and encouraging the partner to provide support for this activity in one of two ways: offer to watch the baby while mother walks or go for a walk with the mother and baby. Example content is provided in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Intervention delivery sample of tailored texts

Full size image

Statistical analysis

The intervention’s impact on the study’s primary outcomes were evaluated using intent-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation for missing follow-up cases. All results are presented using intent-to-treat sample with last case carried forward. All results were run using completed sample as well and any differences in outcomes are mentioned in text. Outcomes, adjusting for baseline variables, were analyzed using ANCOVA for continuous variables (self-efficacy, partner support, depressive symptoms). and Pearson Chi Square for categorical variables (exclusive breastfeeding).

Results

Results of recruitment flow through 6 weeks and 6 month data collection (shown in Fig. 1) show that both survey timepoints were completed by 47 mothers and 26 partners. The majority of the sample was white, and most participants had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher. The household income level of the majority of participants was $75,000 or higher (Table 1).

Primary outcomes

It was hypothesized that participants randomly assigned to the intervention would report higher BSE at 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum compared to those assigned to usual care. Descriptive statistics for all outcomes and groups are reported in Table 3.

Table 3 Breastfeeding and mood outcomes by group
Full size table

BSE

Results of an ANCOVA (baseline BSE covariate) do not support the hypothesized difference in self-efficacy at 6 weeks [F(1, 61) = 1.80, p = 0.19, ηp 2 = 0.03]; however, results show a significant effect of intervention group on 6 months BSE [F(1, 61) = 6.24, p = 0.02, ηp 2 = 0.09]. As expected, participants reported higher self-efficacy in the intervention group (M = 3.69, SE = 0.15, 95%CI = 3.39, 3.99) compared with the control group (M = 3.12, SE = 0.18, 95%CI = 2.75, 3.46).

6-week breastfeeding exclusivity

Pearson Chi-Square assessing level of breastfeeding at 6 weeks postpartum (exclusively breastfeeding or formula introduced) x (intervention or control) shows no significant relationship between group and category of infant feeding [X 2(33) = 0.07, p = 0.80, Cramer’s V = 0.05].

Secondary outcomes

Postpartum partner support

Results of an ANCOVA (PPSS baseline covariate) show no significant effect of intervention group on 6 week PPSS [F(1, 61) = 0.630, p = 0.430, ηp 2 = 0.01] or 6 month PPSS [F(1, 61) = 0.1.56, p = 0.22, ηp 2 = 0.03].

Maternal depressive symptoms (EPDS)

An ANCOVA with EPDS baseline as the only covariate showed no significant effect of intervention group on maternal depression at 6 weeks [F(1, 61) = 1.11, p = 0.30, ηp 2 = 0.02] or 6 months [F(1, 61 = 2.03, p = 0.16, ηp 2 = 0.03]. Similar, no differences were found in partner depression at 6 weeks [F(1, 57) = 0.00, p = 0.10] or 6 months [F(1, 57) = 0.00, p = 0.99].

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine the initial efficacy of a tailored text message program for mothers and their partners to increase BSE and exclusive breastfeeding rates. In comparison with an attentional control group, no differences were found in the primary outcomes at 6 weeks postpartum; however, BSE was found to be significantly higher at the 6 month follow-up.

BSE has been determined to be malleable with intervention, as evidenced by a recent systematic review [41]. However, most existing interventions require more intense and direct provision of information, such as telephone counseling, multiple extended education sessions, or in-person workshops. The current intervention was intentionally designed to be scalable and easily delivered. This approach may not have enough depth of information to make the impact on breastfeeding that previous higher intensity interventions have established, or alternately, limited statistical power may contribute to the breastfeeding and self-efficacy outcomes. Understanding the lower limits of “dosage” for BSE interventions is an important step in designing interventions that maximize breastfeeding outcome impact while also maximizing the scalability and cost effectiveness of the program. Two recent interventions show promise in this mobile-delivered approach. Using social media support via WhatsApp for BSE, authors have found that a combination of pre-set educational messaging and personalized individual counseling (both based in WhatsApp) resulted in increased BSE among women in Turkey [42], while a similar WhatsApp approach was also found useful in Malaysia [43]. Determining best approaches for communicating support to mother-partner dyads will continue to be an important direction for future research. It should be noted that the current study sample is comprised of couples representing relatively high income and education levels, and little racial or ethnic diversity. The impact of these variables on the study intervention outcomes is unknown, and the acceptability and impact of similar interventions across more diverse demographic samples will be important to evaluate in the future.

The study findings have implications for self-efficacy theory as well. The current study finding that the text-based intervention was significantly effective at 6 months, but not at 6 weeks postpartum, suggests further study about the trajectory of BSE be conducted, particularly with first time mothers. Results in this study suggest that the intervention group continued to increase in self-efficacy over time, while control participants’ self-efficacy remained stable from 6 weeks to 6 months. A previous prospective study suggests that stability from this period is typical [44], adding further support to the potential impact of the program by increasing self-efficacy over time. Future exploration of the optimal timing and intensity of breastfeeding support over the first 6 months will be important for determining whether, for example, more intense support is needed during the first several weeks of breastfeeding to establish a beneficial self-efficacy trajectory.

Interestingly, while BSE did improve with the intervention group by 6 months postpartum, the intervention did not produce a difference in exclusive breastfeeding rates at either time point. While a relationship between BSE and exclusive breastfeeding is well established, the current results suggest that perhaps other structural or environmental factors (e.g., return to work) may be playing a role in breastfeeding exclusivity as well. It is possible that a longer follow-up time, such as a 1-year timepoint, would demonstrate different findings around exclusive breastfeeding.

The following limitations should be considered when interpreting the results of the study. First, COVID disruptions as well as an administrative error from the technology partner resulted in a smaller sample size than planned, limiting the statistical power to detect medium or small treatment effects. The recruitment across various levels of COVID restrictions meant that participants’ hospital and postpartum experiences of lockdown or return to work were varied, with the impact of these changes on the intervention unknown. Additionally, while passive engagement is a design strength of the study, it also is a limit, as we cannot know for certain how much the participants engaged in prompted behaviors delivered via text message. Partners engaged in follow-up surveys at lower rates than mothers, potentially suggesting lower engagement of partners, though this cannot be clearly determined.

Future breastfeeding-self-efficacy research should continue to explore the use of scalable and personalized technology, including the ability to adapt with greater nuance using machine learning and artificial intelligence tools. However, researchers should also pilot hybrid approaches that utilize adaptive text message and app-based data collection while also engaging mothers and partners in direct personal communication. Technology combined with personal communication may be especially helpful for overcoming the logistical challenges of including partners and other members of a support system in interventions.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the current study tested the impact of a BSE intervention delivered to mothers and partners using tailored text message delivery. Results of the randomized trial show the intervention improved BSE at 6 months but not 6 weeks postpartum, indicating that text-based mother-partner interventions are a promising direction to continue exploring in postpartum health research.

Availability of data and materials

Current study deidentified data is available through the pre-registered trial at clinicaltrials.gov #NCT04578925 (registration date 2020–07-24).

Notes

  1. Our current study is inclusive of all gender and sexual orientation couples. The term father is used when referencing work cited in the literature as including exclusively fathers; partner is used when referencing our own study design. All birthing people in our study identify as women, so the term mothers will be used.

References

  1. Li R, Ware J, Chen A, et al. Breastfeeding and post-perinatal infant deaths in the United States, a national prospective cohort analysis. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2022;5: 100094.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rameez RM, Sadana D, Kaur S, et al. Association of maternal lactation with diabetes and hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2: e1913401.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Younger Meek MJ, Noble L. American academy of pediatrics, section on breastfeeding. Technical report: Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Pediatrics. 2022;150:e2022057989. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-057989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhou Y, Chen J, Li Q, Huang W, Lan H, Jiang H. Association between breastfeeding and breast cancer risk: evidence from a meta-analysis. Breastfeed Med. 2015;10:175–82. https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2014.0141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025. 9th Edition. December 2020. Available at DietaryGuidelines.gov.

  6. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/health-topics/breastfeeding#tab=tab_1. Accessed 6 June 2023.

  7. CDC. CDC 2016 breastfeeding report card. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/pdf/2014breastfeedingreportcard.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2023.

  8. Morrison AH, Gentry R, Anderson J. Mothers’ reasons for early breastfeeding cessation. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2019;44:325–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMC.0000000000000566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stuebe AM, Grewen K, Pedersen CA, Propper C, Meltzer-Brody S. Failed lactation and perinatal depression: common problems with shared neuroendocrine mechanisms? J Womens Health. 2012;21:264–72. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2011.3083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dennis CL. Theoretical underpinnings of breastfeeding confidence: A self-efficacy framework. J Hum Lact. 1999;15:195–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/089033449901500303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chan MY, Ip WY, Choi KC. The effect of a self-efficacy-based educational programme on maternal breastfeeding self-efficacy, breast feeding duration and exclusive breast feeding rates: a longitudinal study. Midwifery. 2016;1:92–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Faridvand F, Mirghafourvand M, Mohammad-Alizadeh-Charandabi S, Malakouti J. Breastfeeding performance in Iranian women. Int J Nurs Pract. 2018;24(4): e12659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McCarter-Spaulding DE, Dennis CL. Psychometric testing of the breastfeeding self-efficacy scale-short form in a sample of black women in the United States. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33:111–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wong MS, Mou H, Chien WT. Effectiveness of educational and supportive intervention for primiparous women on breastfeeding related outcomes and breastfeeding self-efficacy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Stud Nurs. 2021;117: 103874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.103874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brockway M, Benzies K, Hayden KA. Interventions to improve breastfeeding self-efficacy and resultant breastfeeding rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hum Lact. 2017;33:486–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334417707957.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rathbone AL, Prescott J. The use of mobile apps and SMS messaging as physical and mental health interventions: Systematic review. JMIR. 2017;19: e295. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7740.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Palancı Ay Ö, Aktaş S. The effect of maternal functional and postpartum depression status on breastfeeding self-efficacy of the mothers: A cross-sectional study. Health Care Women Int. 2021;23:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2021.1973008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Henshaw EJ. Breastfeeding and postpartum depression: A review of relationships and potential mechanisms. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-023-01471-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Çankaya S, Ataş A. The relationship of psychological well-being and cognitive emotions with breastfeeding self-efficacy in mothers in the postpartum period. Dev Psychobiol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.22371.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nagel EM, Howland MA, Pando C, Stang J, Mason SM, Fields DA, Demerath EW. Maternal psychological distress and lactation and breastfeeding outcomes: a narrative review. Clin Ther. 2022;44:215–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2021.11.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosenbaum DL, Gillen MM, Markey CH. Feeling let down: an investigation of breastfeeding expectations, appreciation of body functionality, self-compassion, and depression symptoms. Appetite. 2020;154: 104756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104756.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pezley L, Cares K, Duffecy J, et al. Efficacy of behavioral interventions to improve maternal mental health and breastfeeding outcomes: a systematic review. Int Breastfeed J. 2022;17:67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13006-022-00501-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Barrera AZ, Wickham RE, Munoz RF. Online prevention of postpartum depression for Spanish- and English-speaking pregnant women: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Internet Interv. 2015;2:257–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2015.06.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Le HN, Perry DF, Stuart EA. Randomized controlled trial of a preventive intervention for perinatal depression in high-risk Latinas. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2011;79:135–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Beck AT. Cognitive therapy: Nature and relation to behavior therapy—republished article. Behav Ther. 2016;47:776–84. S0005-7894(16)30091-0[pii].

  26. Milgrom J, Danaher BG, Gemmill AW, Holt C, Holt CJ, Seeley JR, et al. Internet cognitive behavioral therapy for women with postnatal depression: a randomized controlled trial of MumMoodBooster. JMIR. 2016;18:e54. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4993.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. O’Mahen HA, Woodford J, McGinley J, Warren FC, Richards DA, Lynch TR, et al. Internet-based behavioral activation—-treatment for postnatal depression (netmums): A randomized controlled trial. J Affect Disord. 2013;150:814–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.03.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hur JW, Kim B, Park D, Choi S-W. A scenario-based cognitive behavioral therapy mobile app to reduce dysfunctional beliefs in individuals with depression: A randomized controlled trial. Telemed J E-Health. 2018;24:710–6. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2017.0214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Health and Human Services Surgeon General Report. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/breastfeeding/factsheet/index.html#:~:text=Breastfeeding%20protects%20babies%20from%20infections,infant%20death%20syndrome%20(SIDS).

  30. Maycock B, Binns CW, Dhaliwal S, Tohotoa J, Hauck Y, Burns S, Howat P. Education and support for fathers improves breastfeeding rates: A randomized controlled trial. J Hum Lact. 2013;29(4):484–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334413484387.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Abbass-Dick J, Stern SB, Nelson LE, Watson W, Dennis CL. Coparenting breastfeeding support and exclusive breastfeeding: A randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2015;135:102–10. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-1416.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Henshaw EJ, Mayer M, Balraj S, Parmar E, Durkin K, Snell R. Couples talk about breastfeeding: Interviews with parents about decision-making, challenges, and the role of fathers and professional support. Health Psychol Open. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/20551029211029158.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Harris R, Taylor BL, Minor V, Elliot M, Fernandez L, O’Neal L, et al. REDCap Consortium, The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208].

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Cox JL, Holden JM, Sagovsky R. Detection of postnatal depression. Development of the 10-item Edinburgh postnatal depression scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1987;150:782–6 S0007125000214712 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dennis CL, Ross LE. The clinical utility of maternal self-reported personal and familial psychiatric history in identifying women at risk for postpartum depression. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Supp. 2006;85:1179–85. 757967013[pii].

  37. Zelkowitz P, Milet TH. Screening for post-partum depression in a community sample. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1995;40:80–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Edmondson OJ, Psychogiou L, Vlachos H, Netsi E, Ramchandani PG. Depression in fathers in the postnatal period: assessment of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale as a screening measure. J Affect Disord. 2010;125:365–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2010.01.069.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Henshaw EJ, Fried R, Siskind E, Newhouse L, Cooper M. Breastfeeding self-efficacy, mood, and breastfeeding outcomes among primiparous women. J Hum Lact. 2015;31:511–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334415579654.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dennis CL, Brennenstuhl S, Abbass-Dick J. Measuring paternal breastfeeding self-efficacy: A psychometric evaluation of the breastfeeding self-efficacy scale-short form among fathers. Midwifery. 2018;64:17–22. S0266-6138(18)30138-4[pii].

  41. Galipeau R, Baillot A, Trottier A, Lemire L. Effectiveness of interventions on breastfeeding self-efficacy and perceived insufficient milk supply: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Matern Child Nutr. 2018;14(3):e12607. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12607.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Uzunçakmak T, Gökşin I, Ayaz-Alkaya S. The effect of social media-based support on breastfeeding self-efficacy: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2022;27:159–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2021.1946500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Pilus MF, Ahmad N, Mohd Zulkefli NA, Mohd Shukri NH. Effect of face-to-face and WhatsApp communication of a theory-based health education intervention on breastfeeding self-efficacy (SeBF Intervention): cluster randomized controlled field trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022;10:e31996. https://doi.org/10.2196/31996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Antoñanzas BE, Belintxon M, Marín FB, Redín AMD, Mujika A, Pumar MMJ, et al. Six‐month breastfeeding maintenance after a self‐efficacy promoting programme: An exploratory trial. Scand J Caring Sci. 2021;35:548–558. https://doi-org.denison.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/scs.12870.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the following individuals for providing essential clinical support for the research study: Molly Ditello, Anne Keller, Darcy Watson, and Deb Pizzuti.

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by the OhioHealth Foundation and Denison University Research Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Denison University, 100 W. College St, Granville, OH, 43023, USA

    Erin Henshaw

  2. Riverside Methodist Hospital, OhioHealth, 3535 Olentangy River Rd., Columbus, OH, USA

    Marie Cooper

  3. OhioHealth, 3535 Olentangy River Rd, Columbus, OH, 43214, USA

    Teresa Wood

  4. OhioHealth Research Institute, 3535 Olentangy River Rd, Columbus, OH, 43214, USA

    Sanchita Krishna & Marie Lockhart

  5. Berger Institute, Claremont McKenna College, 888 N. Columbia Ave, Claremont, CA, 91711, USA

    Stacey Doan

Authors
  1. Erin Henshaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Teresa Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sanchita Krishna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marie Lockhart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stacey Doan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, EH, MC, TW, SD; methodology, EH, MC, TW, ML, SD; formal analysis, EH; investigation, EH, MC, TW, SK, ML, SD; data curation, EH, SK, ML; project administration, EH, MC, TW, SK, ML; writing, EH; review and editing, MC, TW, SK, ML, SD. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin Henshaw.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The authors confirm that all study procedures were performed in accordance with the Belmont Report Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, US Department of Health and Human Services Protection of Human Subjects, FDA policy for the protection of human subjects, and relevant OhioHealth policies and procedures for protection of human subjects. University and hospital IRB approval was obtained for all study activity (OhioHealth Corporation Institutional Review Board # 1296284–21, Denison University IRB Reliance Agreement 4–14-21). All participants provided written informed consent before participation.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henshaw, E., Cooper, M., Wood, T. et al. A randomized controlled trial of the Happy, Healthy, Loved personalized text-message program for new parent couples: impact on breastfeeding self-efficacy and mood. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 24, 506 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06684-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06684-9

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us