Tính chấp nhận của các khoản khuyến khích tài chính cho việc cho con bú: phân tích chủ đề từ các ý kiến của độc giả về các báo cáo tin tức trực tuyến của Vương quốc Anh

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 15 - Trang 1-15 - 2015
Emma L Giles1, Matthew Holmes2, Elaine McColl3, Falko F Sniehotta1, Jean M Adams4
1Health and Social Care Institute, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK
2The Medical School, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
3Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, The Medical School, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
4Centre for Diet and Activity Research, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Level 3 Institute of Metabolic Science, Addenbrooke’s Treatment Centre, Cambridge, UK

Tóm tắt

Mặc dù được khuyến nghị rằng trẻ sơ sinh nên được cho bú hoàn toàn trong sáu tháng đầu đời, nhưng nhiều bà mẹ không duy trì việc cho bú lâu như vậy. Nghiên cứu trước đây xác nhận rằng phụ nữ và những người hỗ trợ sinh đẻ đánh giá cao các khoản khuyến khích tài chính cho việc cho bú, nhưng số lượng nghiên cứu hạn chế đã khám phá khả năng chấp nhận rộng rãi những can thiệp này từ công chúng. Bài báo này xem xét ý kiến về các khoản khuyến khích tài chính cho việc cho bú thông qua phản hồi của độc giả đối với các báo cáo truyền thông trực tuyến tại Vương quốc Anh về một nghiên cứu thực hiện trong lĩnh vực này. Nghiên cứu này đã sử dụng netnography để thực hiện phân tích chủ đề từ 3.373 ý kiến độc giả được đăng sau mười ba bài báo, được xuất bản vào tháng 11 năm 2013, báo cáo kết quả từ một nghiên cứu khả thi về các khoản khuyến khích tài chính cho việc cho bú. Tất cả các bài báo đều được phát hành trên một trong sáu trang web tin tức tại Vương quốc Anh, đạt được một lượng người xem hàng tháng ít nhất năm triệu người trên máy tính xách tay, máy tính để bàn và thiết bị di động trong tháng 4-5 năm 2013. Chín chủ đề phân tích đã được xác định, với quan điểm chủ yếu cho rằng các khoản khuyến khích tài chính cho việc cho bú là không thể chấp nhận. Những chủ đề này bao gồm một loạt ý kiến: từ những bậc cha mẹ thiếu trách nhiệm không thể tự chịu trách nhiệm về hành động của mình; cho đến các thành viên của xã hội dễ bị tổn thương về tâm lý cần được bảo vệ khỏi sự ép buộc và thao túng; đến những người phụ nữ có khả năng và trách nhiệm có thể, và nên được phép, tự đưa ra quyết định của riêng mình. Nhiều ý kiến tập trung vào chi phí ngay lập tức của can thiệp, kết luận rằng đây là điều mà hiện tại không thể chi trả được (ví dụ: từ NHS). Những ý kiến khác đã so sánh giá trị của khoản khuyến khích với các ‘chi phí’ khác của việc cho bú. Có một số xem xét về vấn đề tính hiệu quả chi phí và tiết kiệm chi phí, trong đó lợi ích tiềm năng trong tương lai từ khoản đầu tư ban đầu đã được nhận diện. Nhiều bình luận viên đã chỉ ra rằng các khoản khuyến khích tài chính không giải quyết được nhiều rào cản cơ cấu và văn hóa đối với việc cho bú. Tổng thể, những người bình luận về các bài báo tin tức trực tuyến tại Vương quốc Anh đã coi các khoản khuyến khích tài chính cho việc cho bú là không thể chấp nhận và rằng các can thiệp cơ cấu thay thế có khả năng hiệu quả hơn. Cần tiếp tục xem xét cách tốt nhất để thực hiện nghiên cứu định tính dựa trên internet nhằm thu thập ý kiến về các vấn đề sức khỏe cộng đồng.

Từ khóa

#khuyến khích tài chính #cho bú #nghiên cứu chất lượng #chấp nhận xã hội #rào cản văn hóa

Tài liệu tham khảo

Sciacca JP, Phipps BL, Dube DA, Ratliff MI. Influences on breast-feeding by lower-income women: an incentive-based, partner-supported educational program. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995;95(3):323–8. Department of Health. Infant feeding recommendation. London: Department of Health; 2003. World Health Organisation. Infant and young child feeding: model chapter for textbooks for medical students and allied health professionals. 2009. McAndrew F, Thompson J, Fellows L, Large A, Speed M, Renfrew MJ. Infant feeding survey 2010. Leeds: Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2012. Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety. Breastfeeding - A great start: A strategy for Northern Ireland 2013–2023. 2013. The Scottish Government. Improving maternal and infant nutrition: a framework for action. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government; 2011. The National Assembly for Wales. Investing in a better start: Promoting breastfeeding in Wales. Cardiff: The National Assembly for Wales; 2001. Stanton RW. A road map for change: ensuring that women have breastfeeding support. J Perin Educ. 2011;20(3):130–3. McIntyre E, Hiller JE, Turnbull D. Determinants of infant feeding practices in a low socio-economic area: identifying environmental barriers to breastfeeding. Aust N Z J Public Health. 1999;23(2):207–9. Dobson B, Murtaugh MA. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Breaking the barriers to breastfeeding. JAMA. 2001;101(10):1213–20. Noonan MC, Rippeyoung PLF. The economic costs of breastfeeding for women. Breastfeed Med. 2011;6(5):325–7. Giles EL, Robalino S, McColl E, Sniehotta FF, Adams J. The effectiveness of financial incentives for health behaviour change: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(3):e90347. Finch C, Daniel EL. Breastfeeding education program with incentives increases exclusive breastfeeding among urban WIC participants. JAMA. 2002;102(7):981–4. Lagarde M, Haines A, Palmer N. Conditional cash transfers for improving uptake of health interventions in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. JAMA. 2007;298(16):1900–10. Bonevski B, Bryant J, Lynagh M, Paul C. Money as motivation to quit: a survey of a non-random Australian sample of socially disadvantaged smokers’ views of the acceptability of cash incentives. Prev Med. 2012;55(2):122–6. Kim A, Kamyab K, Zhu J, Volpp K. Why are financial incentives not effective at influencing some smokers to quit? Results of a process evaluation of a worksite trial assessing the efficacy of financial incentives for smoking cessation. J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53(1):62–7. doi:10.1097/JOM.1090b1013e31820061d31820067. Lynagh M, Bonevski B, Symonds I, Sanson-Fisher RW. Paying women to quit smoking during pregnancy? Acceptability among pregnant women. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011;13(11):1029–36. Park JD, Mitra N, Asch DA. Public opinion about financial incentives for smoking cessation. Prev Med. 2012;55(Supplement):S41–5. Promberger M, Brown RCH, Ashcroft RE, Marteau TM. Acceptability of financial incentives to improve health outcomes in UK and US samples. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(11):682–7. Thomson G, Dykes F, Hurley M, Hoddinott P. Incentives as connectors: insights into a breastfeeding incentive intervention in a disadvantaged area of North-West England. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;12(1):22. Giles EL, Robalino SP, McColl EP, Sniehotta FFP, Adams J. Acceptability of financial incentives for encouraging uptake of healthy behaviours: a critical review using systematic methods. Prev Med. 2015;73:145–58. Petry NM. Contingency management treatments: controversies and challenges. Addict. 2010;105(9):1507–9. Arterburn D, Westbrook EO, Wiese CJ, Ludman EJ, Grossman DC, Fishman PA, et al. Insurance coverage and incentives for weight loss among adults with metabolic syndrome. Obesity. 2008;16(1):70–6. Long J, Helweg-Larsen M, Volpp K. Patient opinions regarding ‘pay for performance for patients’. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(10):1647–52. Ritter A, Cameron J. Australian clinician attitudes towards contingency management: comparing down under with America. Drug Alcohol Dep. 2007;87(2–3):312–5. Promberger M, Dolan P, Marteau TM. “Pay them if it works”: Discrete choice experiments on the acceptability of financial incentives to change health related behaviour. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(12):2509–14. Whelan B, Van Cleemput P, Strong M, Relton C. Views on the acceptability of financial incentives for breastfeeding: a qualitative study. Lancet. 2013;382:S103. Kesten J, Cohn S, Ogilvie D. The contribution of media analysis to the evaluation of environmental interventions: the commuting and health in Cambridge study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):482. Relton C. NOSH: Feasibility study and RCT. UK: Clinical Research Network; 2013. Breastfeeding mothers offered £200 in shop vouchers. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24900650] Mothers to get a £200 incentive to breastfeed… in Poundstretcher vouchers: Critics claim scheme is form of bribery. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2501812/Mothers-200-incentive-breastfeed%2D-Poundstretcher-vouchers-Critics-claim-scheme-form-bribery.html] Researchers to offer shopping vouchers to mothers who breastfeed. [http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/nov/12/researchers-offer-shopping-vouchers-breastfeed#start-of-comments] New mothers will NOT be paid to breastfeed, Nick Clegg says as he insists controversial voucher scheme is not government policy. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507269/New-mothers-NOT-paid-breastfeed-Nick-Clegg-says-insists-controversial-voucher-scheme-government-policy.html] The nanny state? Mothers could be given shopping vouchers for breastfeeding their babies. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-nanny-state-mothers-could-be-paid-to-breastfeed-their-babies-8933503.html] Offering poorer mothers £200 to breastfeed is barmy, middle-class lactivism. [http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/offering-poorer-mothers-200-to-breastfeed-is-barmy-middleclass-lactivism-8935416.html] New mothers ‘bribed to breastfeed’ by NHS with £200 shopping vouchers. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10442290/New-mothers-bribed-to-breastfeed-by-NHS-with-200-shopping-vouchers.html#disqus_thread] The worst breastfeeding initiative I’ve ever come across. [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/12/worst-breastfeeding-initiative-shopping-vouchers?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487] Vouchers for breastfeeding are an insult to mums. [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/5259728/Sun-Agony-Aunt-Vouchers-for-breastfeeding-are-an-insult-to-mothers.html] Vouchers for mothers who breastfeed: Isn’t there enough breast-mongering in the world already? [http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/vouchers-for-mothers-who-breastfeed-isnt-there-enough-breastmongering-in-the-world-already-8934923.html] Petticrew M, Whitehead M, Macintyre SJ, Graham H, Egan M. Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: The reality according to policymakers. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(10):811–6. Markham AN. Internet communication as a tool for qualitative research. In: Silverman D, editor. Qualitative research: theory, method and practice. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2004. Kozinets RV. The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities. J Mark Res. 2002;39(1):61–72. Kozinets RV. Netnography: The marketer’s secret weapon. Netbase Solutions, Inc 2010. http://info.netbase.com/rs/netbase/images/Netnography_WP.pdf. Kozinets RV. Marketing netnography: Prom/ot (ulgat) ing a new research method. Methodol Innov Online. 2012;7(1):37–45. De Brún A, McCarthy M, McKenzie K, McGloin A. Weight stigma and narrative resistance evident in online discussions of obesity. Appetite. 2014;72:73–81. Elliott R, Shankar A, Langer R, Beckman SC. Sensitive research topics: netnography revisited. Qual Market Res Int J. 2005;8(2):189–203. Freeman B. Tobacco plain packaging legislation: a content analysis of commentary posted on Australian online news. Tob Control. 2011;20(5):361–6. Thurman N. Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news media. New Media Socy. 2008;10(1):139–57. OfCom. The communications market. 2013. Robinson S. The mission of the j-blog: recapturing journalistic authority online. Journalism. 2006;7(1):65–83. Robinson S. Someone’s gotta be in control here”. Journal Pract. 2007;1(3):305–21. House Rules. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/learningenglish/house-rules.shtml] The have your say rules. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4176520.st] Office of National Statistics. Internet access - Households and individuals, 2013. 2013. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):59. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):45. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Transaction Publishers; 2009. Adams J, Giles EL, McColl E, Sniehotta FF. Carrots, sticks and health behaviours: a framework for documenting the complexity of financial incentive interventions to change health behaviours. Health Psychol Rev. 2013;8(3):286–95. Callen J, Pinelli J. A review of the literature examining the benefits and challenges, indidence and duration, and barriers to breastfeeding in preterms infants. Adv Neonatal Care. 2005;5(2):72–88. doi:10.1016/j.adnc.2004.1012.1003. Kozinets RV. On netnography: initial reflections on consumer research investigations of cyberculture. Adv Consumer Res. 1998;25(1):366–71. Hermida A, Thurman N. A clash of cultures. Journal Pract. 2008;2(3):343–56. Purcell K, Rainie L, Mitchell A, Rosenstiel T, Olmstead K. Understanding the participatory news consumer. Pew Internet Am Life Project. 2010;1:19–21. Mathieu E, Barratt A, Carter S, Jamtvedt G. Internet trials: participant experiences and perspectives. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):162. Lugosi P, Janta H, Watson P. Investigative management and consumer research on the internet. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. 2012;24(6):838–54. Tracy SJ. Qualitative quality: eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qual Inq. 2010;16(10):837–51. Moraes C, Michaelidou N. Ethics in netnographic research, 37th Macromarketing Conference: 2012. 2012. p. 157. Tsagkias M, Weerkamp W, de Rijke M. News comments:Exploring, modeling, and online prediction. In: Gurrin C, He Y, Kazai G, Kruschwitz U, Little S, Roelleke T, Rüger S, van Rijsbergen K, editors. Advances in Information Retrieval, vol. Volume 5993. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. p. 191–203. Giles EL, Sniehotta F, McColl E, Adams J. Acceptability of financial incentives and penalties for encouraging uptake of healthy behaviours: focus groups. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(58):1–12. Lynagh M, Sanson-Fisher R, Bonevski B. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Guiding principles for the use of financial incentives in health behaviour change. Int J Behav Med. 2013;20(1):114–20. London AJ, Borasky Jr DA, Bhan A, the Ethics Working Group of the H.I.V Prevention Trials Network. Improving ethical review of research involving incentives for health promotion. PLoS Med. 2012;9(3):e1001193. Schmidt H, Asch DA, Halpern SD. Fairness and wellness incentives: What is the relevance of the process-outcome distinction? Prev Med. 2012;55(Supplement):S118–23. Hoddinott P, Morgan H, MacLennan G, Sewel K, Thomson G, Bauld L, et al. Public acceptability of financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy and breast feeding: a survey of the British public. BMJ Open. 2014;4(7):1–9. Lee J, Park DH, Han I. The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view. Electron Commer Res Appl. 2008;7(3):341–52. Ashcroft RE. Personal financial incentives in health promotion: where do they fit in an ethic of autonomy? Health Expect. 2011;14(2):191–200. Kane RL, Johnson PE, Town RJ, Butler M. A structured review of the effect of economic incentives on consumers’ preventive behavior. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(4):327–52. Oliver A, Brown LD. A consideration of user financial incentives to address health inequalities. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2012;37(2):201–26. Terry PE, Anderson DR. Finding common ground in the use of financial incentives for employee health management: A call for a progress-based approach. Am J Health Promot. 2011;26(1):ev–evii. Borland R, Partos TR, Yong H-H, Cummings KM, Hyland A. How much unsuccessful quitting activity is going on among adult smokers? Data from the International Tobacco Control Four Country cohort survey. Addict. 2012;107(3):673–82. Giné X, Karlan D, Zinman J. Put your money where your butt is: a commitment contract for smoking cessation. Am Econ J Applied Econ. 2010;2(4):213–35. Bose DCC, Bernhaud KA, Baumgardner DJ. Application of the breastfeeding personal efficacy beliefs inventory and acknowledgement of barriers for improving breastfeeding initiation rates in an urban population. J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2014;1(2):77–81. Liamputtong P. Infant feeding practices: A cross-cultural perspective. London: Springer; 2010. Kraut R, Olson J, Banaji M, Bruckman A, Cohen J, Couper M. Psychological research online: report of Board of Scientific Affairs’ Advisory Group on the conduct of research on the internet. Am Psychol. 2004;59(2):105–17. Intellectual Property Office. Exceptions to copyright: Research. Newport: The Intellectial Property Office; 2014. Ethics guidelines for internet-mediated research, INF206/1.2013. Leicester. [http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/policy-and-guidelines/research-guidelines-policy-documents/research-guidelines-poli] Drummond F, McGuire A. Economic evaluation in health care: Merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001. Cameron J, Ritter A. Contingency management: perspectives of Australian service providers. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2007;26(2):183–9. Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(4):673–93. Sorensen K, Van den Broucke S, Fullam J, Doyle G, Pelikan J, Slonska Z, et al. Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):80. Census and geodemographics. [https://www.mrs.org.uk/mrs/census_and_geodemographics_group]