Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial board
    • Open access
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ Open
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ Open

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial board
    • Open access
    • Contact
  • RSS feeds
Research
Open Access

Association between newborn hypoglycemia screening and breastfeeding success in an Ottawa, Ontario, hospital: a retrospective cohort study

Michael Saginur, Joseph Abdulnour, Eva Guérin, Xaand Bancroft, Daniel J. Corsi, Vincent Della Zazzera and El Mostafa Bouattane
April 25, 2023 11 (2) E381-E388; DOI: https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20210324
Michael Saginur
Institut du Savoir Montfort (Saginur, Abdulnour, Guérin, Bancroft, Della Zazzera); Faculty of Medicine (Saginur), University of Ottawa; Performance and Decision Support (Abdulnour, Bouattane), Montfort Hospital; Department of Psychology (Guérin), Carleton University, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (Corsi), Ottawa, Ont.
MD MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph Abdulnour
Institut du Savoir Montfort (Saginur, Abdulnour, Guérin, Bancroft, Della Zazzera); Faculty of Medicine (Saginur), University of Ottawa; Performance and Decision Support (Abdulnour, Bouattane), Montfort Hospital; Department of Psychology (Guérin), Carleton University, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (Corsi), Ottawa, Ont.
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eva Guérin
Institut du Savoir Montfort (Saginur, Abdulnour, Guérin, Bancroft, Della Zazzera); Faculty of Medicine (Saginur), University of Ottawa; Performance and Decision Support (Abdulnour, Bouattane), Montfort Hospital; Department of Psychology (Guérin), Carleton University, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (Corsi), Ottawa, Ont.
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xaand Bancroft
Institut du Savoir Montfort (Saginur, Abdulnour, Guérin, Bancroft, Della Zazzera); Faculty of Medicine (Saginur), University of Ottawa; Performance and Decision Support (Abdulnour, Bouattane), Montfort Hospital; Department of Psychology (Guérin), Carleton University, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (Corsi), Ottawa, Ont.
MHA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel J. Corsi
Institut du Savoir Montfort (Saginur, Abdulnour, Guérin, Bancroft, Della Zazzera); Faculty of Medicine (Saginur), University of Ottawa; Performance and Decision Support (Abdulnour, Bouattane), Montfort Hospital; Department of Psychology (Guérin), Carleton University, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (Corsi), Ottawa, Ont.
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vincent Della Zazzera
Institut du Savoir Montfort (Saginur, Abdulnour, Guérin, Bancroft, Della Zazzera); Faculty of Medicine (Saginur), University of Ottawa; Performance and Decision Support (Abdulnour, Bouattane), Montfort Hospital; Department of Psychology (Guérin), Carleton University, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (Corsi), Ottawa, Ont.
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
El Mostafa Bouattane
Institut du Savoir Montfort (Saginur, Abdulnour, Guérin, Bancroft, Della Zazzera); Faculty of Medicine (Saginur), University of Ottawa; Performance and Decision Support (Abdulnour, Bouattane), Montfort Hospital; Department of Psychology (Guérin), Carleton University, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (Corsi), Ottawa, Ont.
MD MBA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Tables

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1:
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1:

    Study inclusion flow diagram. Exclusion criteria were as follows: sick newborn = a newborn with an illness (e.g., transient tachypnea of the newborn requiring admission to intensive care); early discharge = discharge before 24 hours of life; pregnancy risk = a pregnancy-related condition (e.g., twin pregnancy, birth at gestational age < 35 wk); maternal complications = maternal obstetrical complications or treatment (e.g., sepsis or admission to intensive care); congenital/birth condition = newborn congenital malformations (e.g., cleft palate), global conditions (e.g., Down syndrome) or birth complications (e.g., long-bone fracture).

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1:

    Glucose measurements recorded per newborn for all babies and by screening indication

    No. of glucose measurementsScreening indication; no. (%) of newborns
    All newborns
    n = 10 965
    Large for GA
    n = 1253
    Small for GA
    n = 151
    Premature
    n = 159
    Birthing parent with diabetes
    n = 560
    08124 (74.1)432 (34.5)11 (7.3)9 (5.7)30 (5.4)
    1580 (5.3)117 (9.3)6 (4.0)8 (5.0)49 (8.8)
    2309 (2.8)130 (10.4)3 (2.0)7 (4.4)52 (9.3)
    3363 (3.3)162 (12.9)7 (4.6)12 (7.5)86 (15.4)
    ≥ 41589 (14.5)412 (32.9)124 (82.1)123 (77.4)343 (61.3)
    • Note: GA = gestational age.

    • View popup
    Table 2:

    Characteristics of newborns*

    CharacteristicNo. (%)†
    All newborns
    n = 10 965
    Screened
    n = 1952
    Unscreened
    n = 9013
    GA, wk, mean ± SD39.3 ± 1.239.0 ± 1.439.4 ± 1.1
    Birth weight, g, mean ± SDn = 10 855
    3458 ± 453
    n = 1936
    3411 ± 721
    n = 8919
    3468 ± 369
    Apgar score, mean ± SDn = 10 122
    8.39 ± 0.90
    n = 1815
    8.32 ± 0.99
    n = 8307
    8.41 ± 0.88
    Birthing parent with diabetes560 (5.1)429 (22.0)131 (1.5)
    Premature159 (1.5)135 (6.9)20 (0.2)
    Weight for GAn = 10 860n = 1936n = 8924
     Normal9456 (87.1)1231 (63.6)8225 (92.2)
     Large1253 (11.5)574 (29.6)679 (7.6)
     Small151 (1.4)131 (6.8)20 (0.2)
    Exclusively breastfed at 24 hn = 10 096
    4325 (42.8)
    n = 1772
    543 (30.6)
    n = 8324
    3782 (45.4)
    Birth year
     20142527 (23.0)342 (17.5)2185 (24.2)
     20152610 (23.8)385 (19.7)2225 (24.7)
     20162353 (21.5)475 (24.3)1878 (20.8)
     20172314 (21.1)497 (25.5)1817 (20.2)
     20181161 (10.6)253 (13.0)908 (10.1)
    Antenatal parity ≥ 15821 (53.1)996 (51.0)4825 (53.5)
    Hypertension or pre-eclampsia684 (6.2)181 (9.3)503 (5.6)
    Obesity1431 (13.1)365 (18.7)1066 (11.8)
    Smoking by the birthing parent766 (7.0)145 (7.4)621 (6.9)
    Social issues or perinatal inpatient drug screening167 (1.5)42 (2.2)125 (1.4)
    Marital status divorced, single or widowed (v. married or common law)818 (7.5)148 (7.6)670 (7.4)
    Pyrexia219 (2.0)30 (1.5)189 (2.1)
    Induced2984 (27.2)705 (36.1)2279 (25.3)
    Mode of birth
     Simple vaginal7262 (66.2)1232 (63.1)6023 (66.8)
     Assisted vaginal971 (8.9)190 (9.7)781 (8.7)
     Elective cesarian1341 (12.2)234 (12.0)1107 (12.3)
     Emergency cesarian1391 (12.7)291 (14.9)1100 (12.2)
    5-minute Apgar score
     ≤ 7176 (1.6)34 (1.7)142 (1.6)
     ≥ 810 578 (96.5)1878 (96.2)8700 (96.5)
    Brief postnatal CPAP392 (3.6)100 (5.1)292 (3.2)
    Newborn cardiorespiratory issue394 (3.6)96 (5) (4.9)298 (3.3)
    Laceration
     None4483 (40.9)827 (42.4)3656 (40.6)
     First or second degree6064 (55.3)1047 (53.6)5017 (55.7)
     Third or fourth degree418 (3.8)78 (4.0)340 (3.8)
    Postpartum hemorrhage or anemia952 (8.7)184 (9.4)768 (8.5)
    Birthing parent obstetric complication5592 (51.0)997 (51.1)4595 (51.0)
    • Note: CPAP = continuous positive airway pressure, GA = gestational age.

    • ↵* As per the study protocol, preterm babies born earlier than 36 weeks were excluded from the study since they were observed and cared for in the special care nursery following birth. Appendix 1 (available at www.cmajopen.ca/content/11/2/E381/suppl/DC1) offers more information on variable definitions and source data.

    • ↵† Unless stated otherwise.

    • View popup
    Table 3:

    Methods of feeding used in the first 24 hours of life*

    Feeding methodNo. (%) of newborns
    Screened
    n = 1772
    Unscreened
    n = 8324
    At the breast only506 (28.6)3560 (42.8)
    Expressed breastmilk and the breast37 (2.1)222 (2.7)
    Breastmilk and formula1144 (64.6)4147 (49.8)
    Formula only85 (4.8)395 (4.7)
    • ↵* p value for difference < 0.001.

    • View popup
    Table 4:

    Multipredictor model of exclusive breastfeeding (n = 9709)*

    VariableOR (95% CI)
    Screened (≥ 3 measures v. < 3 measures)0.57 (0.51–0.64)
    Birth year
     2014Ref.
     20150.92 (0.82–1.04)
     20160.70 (0.62–0.79)
     20170.71 (0.63–0.80)
     20180.92 (0.75–1.12)
    Antenatal parity ≥ 11.88 (1.71–2.06)
    Hypertension or pre-eclampsia0.87 (0.72–1.05)
    Obesity0.83 (0.72–0.95)
    Smoking by the birthing parent0.76 (0.64–0.91)
    Social issues or perinatal inpatient drug screening0.57 (0.38–0.85)
    Marital status divorced, single or widowed (v. married or common law)0.65 (0.55–0.78)
    Pyrexia0.73 (0.53–1.00)
    Induced0.83 (0.75–0.91)
    Mode of birth
     Simple vaginalRef.
     Assisted vaginal0.86 (0.73–1.01)
     Elective cesarian0.80 (0.68–0.94)
     Emergency cesarian0.80 (0.67–0.95)
    5-minute Apgar score ≥ 81.48 (0.99–2.22)
    Brief postnatal CPAP1.13 (0.79–1.62)
    Newborn cardiorespiratory issue0.94 (0.67–1.32)
    Laceration
     NoneRef.
     First or second degree0.95 (0.84–1.07)
     Third or fourth degree0.92 (0.72–1.18)
    Postpartum hemorrhage or anemia0.98 (0.84–1.13)
    Birthing parent obstetric complication0.91 (0.84–0.99)
    • Note: CI = confidence interval, CPAP = continuous positive airway pressure, OR = odds ratio, Ref. = reference category.

    • ↵* The final step of the model is presented; 1256 newborns were omitted owing to missing data. The first model of the binary hierarchical logistic regression contained the confounder variables, and was significant over the null hypothesis, χ2(22) = 501 p < 0.001, with an Nagelkerke R square = 0.068. The second model added glucose screening (≥ 3 v. < 3 measures) on exclusive breastfeeding at 24 hours. The logistic regression was significant over null hypothesis (χ2(23) = 595; p < 0.001), and an improvement over the first model (χ2(1) = 94; p < 0.001) with an R square = 0.080.

    • View popup
    Table 5:

    Multipredictor model of exclusive breastfeeding, screening status divided by indication (n = 8297)*

    VariableOR (95% CI)
    < 3 glucose measures, screen not indicatedRef.
    Screened (≥ 3 measures), preterm0.23 (0.14–0.38)
    Screened (≥ 3 measures), small for GA0.25 (0.14–0.44)
    Screened (≥ 3 measures), birthing parent with diabetes0.57 (0.44–0.73)
    Screened (≥ 3 measures), large for GA0.72 (0.59–0.87)
    Birth year
     2014Ref.
     20150.89 (0.78–1.01)
     20160.66 (0.58–0.76)
     20170.71 (0.62–0.81)
     20180.90 (0.72–1.11)
    Antenatal parity ≥ 11.82 (1.64–2.01)
    Hypertension or pre-eclampsia0.85 (0.70–1.04)
    Obesity0.77 (0.67–0.90)
    Smoking by the birthing parent0.80 (0.66–0.96)
    Social issues or perinatal inpatient drug screening0.61 (0.40–0.94)
    Marital status divorced, single or widowed (v. married or common law)0.66 (0.55–0.80)
    Pyrexia0.70 (0.50–1.00)
    Induced0.85 (0.77–0.95)
    Mode of birth
     Simple vaginalRef.
     Assisted vaginal0.91 (0.76–1.08)
     Elective cesarian0.79 (0.66–0.93)
     Emergency cesarian0.80 (0.67–0.97)
    5-minute Apgar score ≥ 81.55 (1.01–2.38)
    Brief postnatal CPAP1.32 (0.89–1.96)
    Newborn cardiorespiratory issue0.87 (0.59–1.26)
    Laceration
     NoneRef.
     First or second degree0.92 (0.80–1.04)
     Third or fourth degree0.81 (0.62–1.05)
    Postpartum hemorrhage or anemia0.96 (0.82–1.13)
    Birthing parent obstetric complication0.90 (0.82–0.99)
    • Note: CI = confidence interval, CPAP = continuous positive airway pressure, GA = gestational age, OR = odds ratio, Ref. = reference category.

    • ↵* The final step of the model is presented; 2668 newborns were omitted owing to missing data. The logistic regression was significant over null hypothesis (χ2(26) = 499; p < 0.001), and a small improvement over the first model (Table 3) (χ2(4) = 96; p < 0.001) with an Nagelkerke R square = 0.078.

    • View popup
    Table 6:

    Multipredictor model of exclusive breastfeeding, including screen status and screen indications (n = 9709)*

    VariableOR (95% CI)
    Screened (≥ 3 measures v. < 3 measures)0.64 (0.56–0.73)
    Screening indication
     NoneRef.
     Preterm0.37 (0.23–0.58)
     Small for GA0.37 (0.22–0.63)
     Birthing parent with diabetes0.88 (0.69–1.10)
     Large for GA1.03 (0.89–1.19)
    Birth year
     2014Ref.
     20150.92 (0.82–1.04)
     20160.70 (0.61–0.79)
     20170.71 (0.62–0.81)
     20180.92 (0.75–1.12)
    Antenatal parity ≥ 11.86 (1.70–2.04)
    Hypertension or pre-eclampsia0.89 (0.74–1.07)
    Obesity0.82 (0.71–0.94)
    Smoking by the birthing parent0.77 (0.64–0.92)
    Social issues or perinatal inpatient drug screening0.57 (0.38–0.85)
    Marital status divorced, single or widowed (v. married or common law)0.65 (0.55–0.77)
    Pyrexia0.72 (0.52–0.99)
    Induced0.84 (0.76–0.93)
    Mode of birth
     Simple vaginalRef.
     Assisted vaginal0.85 (0.73–1.01)
     Elective cesarian0.80 (0.68–0.94)
     Emergency cesarian0.79 (0.67–0.94)
    5-minute Apgar score ≥ 81.50 (1.00–2.24)
    Brief postnatal CPAP1.13 (0.79–1.61)
    Newborn cardiorespiratory issue0.93 (0.66–1.31)
    Laceration
     NoneRef.
     First or second degree0.94 (0.83–1.06)
     Third or fourth degree0.90 (0.70–1.15)
    Postpartum hemorrhage or anemia0.98 (0.84–1.13)
    Birthing parent obstetric complication0.91 (0.83–0.99)
    • Note: CI = confidence interval, CPAP = continuous positive airway pressure, GA = gestational age, OR = odds ratio, Ref. = reference category.

    • ↵* The final step of the model is presented;1256 newborns were omitted owing to missing data. The tertiary binary logistic regression was also significant over null hypothesis (χ2(27) = 614; p < 0.001), and a small improvement over the second model (screening risk factors) (χ2(1) = 43; p < 0.001) with an Nagelkerke R square = 0.085.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ Open: 11 (2)
Vol. 11, Issue 2
1 Mar 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Association between newborn hypoglycemia screening and breastfeeding success in an Ottawa, Ontario, hospital: a retrospective cohort study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ Open web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Association between newborn hypoglycemia screening and breastfeeding success in an Ottawa, Ontario, hospital: a retrospective cohort study
Michael Saginur, Joseph Abdulnour, Eva Guérin, Xaand Bancroft, Daniel J. Corsi, Vincent Della Zazzera, El Mostafa Bouattane
Mar 2023, 11 (2) E381-E388; DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20210324

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Association between newborn hypoglycemia screening and breastfeeding success in an Ottawa, Ontario, hospital: a retrospective cohort study
Michael Saginur, Joseph Abdulnour, Eva Guérin, Xaand Bancroft, Daniel J. Corsi, Vincent Della Zazzera, El Mostafa Bouattane
Mar 2023, 11 (2) E381-E388; DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20210324
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Neonatal hypoglycaemia
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Clinical
    • Pediatrics
      • Breastfeeding & infant nutrition
      • Neonates
  • Nonclinical
    • Epidemiology
      • Screening tests

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panel
  • Contact Us
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2025, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 2291-0026

All editorial matter in CMAJ OPEN represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

 

Powered by HighWire