Responsive feeding (RF) involves reciprocal nurturing feeding practices between the caregiver and the child that encourage the child to develop preferences for healthy foods and beverages and to eat autonomously. In this commentary, we summarize RF-related findings from a recent US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) consensus study report examining consistency in infant and young child feeding (IYCF) recommendations in guidelines from high-income countries, and we discuss implications for future IYCF guidelines. Although existing guidelines included generally consistent messages about several RF behaviors, such as the importance of encouraging self-feeding and self-regulation in infants and toddlers, they generally did not present the recommendations as part of a cohesive RF interdisciplinary framework. Moving forward, evidence-based RF recommendations should be routinely incorporated and identified in dietary guidance for IYCF based on a consensus definition of RF grounded in sound responsive parenting and feeding frameworks. We recommend replicating the National Academies' scoping review in low- and middle- income countries and mixed-methods implementation science research to improve our understanding of how best to disseminate and implement RF-related recommendations across settings (e.g., home and early care and education centers), taking the social determinants of health into account.

Using social media is one important strategy to communicate research and public health guidelines to the scientific community and general public. Empirical evidence about which communication strategies are effective around breastfeeding messaging is scarce. To fill this gap, we aimed to identify influencers in the largest available Twitter database using social network analysis (n = 10,694 users), inductively analyze tweets, and explore communication strategies, motivations, and challenges via semi-structured interviews. Influencers had diverse backgrounds within and beyond the scientific health community (SHC; 42.7%): 54.7% were from the general public and 3% were companies. SHC contributed to most of the tweets (n = 798 tweets), disseminating guidelines and research findings more frequently than others (p < 0.001). Influencers from the general community mostly tweeted opinions regarding the current state of breastfeeding research and advocacy. Interviewees provided practical strategies (e.g., preferred visuals, tone, and writing style) to achieve personal and societal goals including career opportunities, community support, and improved breastfeeding practices. Complex challenges that need to be addressed were identified. Ideological differences regarding infant feeding may be hampering constructive communication, including differences in influencers' interpretation of the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and in perspectives regarding which social media interactions encompass conflict of interest.

Using Twitter to implement public health awareness campaigns is on the rise, but campaign monitoring and evaluation are largely dependent on basic Twitter Analytics. To establish the potential of social network theory-based metrics in better understanding public health campaigns, we analyzed real-time user interactions on Twitter during the 2020 World Breastfeeding Week (WBW) as an exemplar case. Social network analysis (SNA), including community and influencer identification, as well as topic modeling were used to compare the activity of n = 29,958 campaign participants and n = 10,694 reference users from the six-months pre-campaign period. Users formed more inter-connected relationships during the campaign, retweeting and mentioning each other 46,161 times compared to 10,662 times in the prior six months. Campaign participants formed identifiable communities that were not only based on their geolocation, but also based on interests and professional background. While influencers who dominated the WBW conversations were disproportionally members of the scientific community, the campaign did mobilize influencers from the general public who seemed to play a "bridging" role between the public and the scientific community. Users communicated about the campaign beyond its original themes to also discuss breastfeeding within the context of social and racial inequities. Applying SNA allowed understanding of the breastfeeding campaign's messaging and engagement dynamics across communities and influencers. Moving forward, WBW could benefit from improving targeting to enhance geographic coverage and user interactions. As this exemplar case indicates, social network theory and analysis can be used to inform other public health campaigns with data on user interactions that go beyond traditional metrics.

International migration has economic and health implications. The acculturation process to the host country may be linked to childhood obesity. We use the Community Energy Balance (CEB) framework to analyze the relationship between migration and childhood obesity in Mexican households with international migrants. Using longitudinal data from the Mexican Family Life Survey (MxFLS), we examine how migrant networks affect childhood obesity in origin communities. We also review binational health programs that could be effective at tackling childhood obesity in migrant households from Mexico. Children embedded in migrant networks are at greater risk of developing overweight or obesity, suggesting a significant relationship between childhood obesity and international migration in Mexican households. Based on our search criteria, our analysis of health outreach programs shows that Ventanillas de Salud (VDS)/Health Windows has great promise to prevent childhood obesity in a culturally sensitive and trustful environment. The CEB framework is useful to understand how migration contributes to the risk of childhood overweight and obesity in migrant households. VDS is a feasible and replicable strategy with great potential to address childhood obesity among migrant families accounting for the dynamic and binational determinants of childhood obesity.

Breastfeeding and human milk (HM) are critically important to maternal, infant and population health. This paper summarizes the proceedings of a workshop that convened a multidisciplinary panel of researchers to identify key priorities and anticipated breakthroughs in breastfeeding and HM research, discuss perceived barriers and challenges to achieving these breakthroughs and propose a constructive action plan to maximize the impact of future research in this field. Priority research areas identified were as follows: (1) addressing low breastfeeding rates and inequities using mixed methods, community partnerships and implementation science approaches; (2) improving awareness of evidence-based benefits, challenges and complexities of breastfeeding and HM among health practitioners and the public; (3) identifying differential impacts of alternative modes of HM feeding including expressed/pumped milk, donor milk and shared milk; and (4) developing a mechanistic understanding of the health effects of breastfeeding and the contributors to HM composition and variability. Key barriers and challenges included (1) overcoming methodological limitations of epidemiological breastfeeding research and mechanistic HM research; (2) counteracting 'breastfeeding denialism' arising from negative personal breastfeeding experiences; (3) distinguishing and aligning research and advocacy efforts; and (4) managing real and perceived conflicts of interest. To advance research on breastfeeding and HM and maximize the reach and impact of this research, larger investments are needed, interdisciplinary collaboration is essential, and the scientific community must engage families and other stakeholders in research planning and knowledge translation.

BACKGROUND: During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding, and 4) lower versus higher intensities of human milk fed to mixed-fed infants with intermediate and endpoint cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in offspring. METHODS: The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published January 1980-March 2016, dual-screened the results using predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed the risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence. RESULTS: The 4 systematic reviews included 13, 24, 6, and 0 articles, respectively. The evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about endpoint CVD outcomes across all 4 systematic reviews. Limited evidence suggests that never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with higher blood pressure within a normal range at 6-7 y of age. Moderate evidence suggests there is no association between the duration of any human milk feeding and childhood blood pressure. Limited evidence suggests there is no association between the duration of exclusive human milk feeding and blood pressure or metabolic syndrome in childhood. Additional evidence about intermediate outcomes for the 4 systematic reviews was scant or inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the relationships between infant milk-feeding practices and endpoint CVD outcomes; however, some evidence suggests that feeding less or no human milk is not associated with childhood hypertension.

BACKGROUND: During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding, and 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants with acute childhood leukemia, generally, and acute lymphoblastic leukemia, specifically. METHODS: The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published January 1980 to March 2016, dual-screened the results using predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 24 articles from case-control or retrospective studies. Limited evidence suggests that never feeding human milk versus 1) ever feeding human milk and 2) feeding human milk for durations ≥6 mo are associated with a slightly higher risk of acute childhood leukemia, whereas evidence comparing never feeding human milk with feeding human milk for durations <6 mo is mixed. Limited evidence suggests that, among infants fed human milk, a shorter versus longer duration of human milk feeding is associated with a slightly higher risk of acute childhood leukemia. None of the included articles examined exclusive human milk feeding or the intensity of human milk fed to mixed-fed infants. CONCLUSIONS: Feeding human milk for short durations or not at all may be associated with slightly higher acute childhood leukemia risk. The evidence could be strengthened with access to broadly generalizable prospective samples; therefore, we recommend linking surveillance systems that collect infant feeding and childhood cancer data.

BACKGROUND: During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding prior to infant formula introduction, 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants, and 5) feeding a higher intensity of human milk by bottle versus breast with food allergies, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and asthma. METHODS: The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published between January 1980 and March 2016, dual-screened the results according to predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed the risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence. RESULTS: The systematic reviews numbered 1-5 above included 44, 35, 1, 0, and 0 articles, respectively. Moderate, mostly observational, evidence suggests that 1) never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with higher risk of childhood asthma, and 2) among children and adolescents who were fed human milk as infants, shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding are associated with higher risk of asthma. Limited evidence does not suggest associations between 1) never versus ever being fed human milk and atopic dermatitis in childhood or 2) the duration of any human milk feeding and allergic rhinitis and atopic dermatitis in childhood. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate evidence suggests that feeding human milk for short durations or not at all is associated with higher childhood asthma risk. Evidence on food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis is limited.

BACKGROUND: During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and US Department of Health and Human Services initiated an evidence review on diet and health in these populations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relationships of never versus ever feeding human milk, shorter versus longer durations of any and exclusive human milk feeding, and feeding a lower versus a higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants with diagnosed celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team (formerly called the Nutrition Evidence Library) conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published January, 1980 to March, 2016, dual-screened the results using predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 9 celiac disease and 17 IBD articles. Limited case-control evidence suggests never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with higher risk of celiac disease, but concerns about reverse causality precluded a conclusion about the relationship of shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding with celiac disease. Evidence examining never versus ever feeding human milk and IBD was inconclusive, and limited, but consistent, case-control evidence suggests that, among infants fed human milk, shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding are associated with higher risk of IBD. For both outcomes, evidence examining the duration of exclusive human milk feeding was scant and no articles examined the intensity of human milk fed to mixed-fed infants. CONCLUSION: Limited case-control evidence suggests that feeding human milk for short durations or not at all associates with higher risk of diagnosed IBD and celiac disease, respectively. The small number of studies and concern about reverse causality and recall bias prevent stronger conclusions.

BACKGROUND: During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding, and 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in offspring. METHODS: The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published January 1980-March 2016, dual-screened the results according to predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed the risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence. RESULTS: The 4 systematic reviews included 21, 37, 18, and 1 articles, respectively. Observational evidence suggests that never versus ever feeding human milk (limited evidence) and shorter versus longer durations of any (moderate evidence) and exclusive (limited evidence) human milk feeding are associated with higher type 1 diabetes risk. Insufficient evidence examined type 2 diabetes. Limited evidence suggests that the durations of any and exclusive human milk feeding are not associated with intermediate outcomes (e.g., fasting glucose, insulin resistance) during childhood. CONCLUSIONS: Limited to moderate evidence suggests that feeding less or no human milk is associated with higher risk of type 1 diabetes in offspring. Limited evidence suggests no associations between the durations of any and exclusive human milk feeding and intermediate diabetes outcomes in children. Additional research is needed on infant milk-feeding practices and type 2 diabetes and intermediate outcomes in US populations, which may have distinct metabolic risk.