What influences the timing of the introduction of solid food to infants?

The aim of the present study was to assess the factors which may influence the timing of the introduction of solid food to infants. The design was a prospective cohort study by interview and postal questionnaire. Primiparous women (n 541) aged between 16 and 40 years were approached in the Forth Park Maternity Hospital, Fife, Scotland. Of these, 526 women agreed to participate and seventy-eight were used as subjects in the pilot study. At 12 weeks we interviewed 338 women of the study sample. The postal questionnaire was returned by 286 of 448 volunteers. At 12 weeks 133 of 338 mothers said that they had introduced solids. Those that said that they had introduced solids early (<12 weeks) were compared with those who had introduced solids late (>12 weeks) by bivariate and multiple regression analysis. Psychosocial factors influencing the decision were measured with the main outcome measure being the time of introduction of solid food. The early introduction of solids was found to be associated with: the opinions of the infant's maternal grandmother; living in a deprived area; personal disagreement with the advice to wait until the baby was 4 months; lack of encouragement from friends to wait until the baby was 4 months; being in receipt of free samples of manufactured food. Answers to open-ended questions indicated that the early introduction appeared to be influenced by the mothers’ perceptions of the baby's needs. Some of the factors influencing a woman's decision to introduce solids are amenable to change, and these could be targeted in educational interventions.

Priorities for future intensive care research in the UK: results of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

This James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership aimed to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about adult intensive care that are important to people who have been critically ill, their families, and the health professionals who care for them. Consensus techniques (modified Delphi and Nominal Group) were used to generate suggestions using online and postal surveys. Following verification and iterative editorial review, research topics were constructed from these suggestions. These topics were presented in a second online and postal survey for rating. A Nominal Group of 21 clinicians, patients and family representatives subsequently met to rank the most important research topics and produce a prioritised list. The project was coordinated by a representative Steering Group and independently overseen by the JLA. The initial survey and review of the literature generated over 1,300 suggestions. Preliminary editing and verification permitted us to encapsulate these suggestions within 151 research topics. Iterative review by members of the Steering Group produced 37 topic statements, subsequently rated by participants. Using the mode to determine importance, 19 topics were presented to the group from which a ‘top three’ intensive care research priorities were identified and a further nine topics were prioritised. By applying and adapting the JLA methodology to focus on an area of care rather than to a single disease, we have provided a means to ensure that patients, their families and professionals materially contribute to the prioritisation of intensive care research in the UK.