Published online Jul 19, 2025. doi: 10.5498/wjp.v15.i7.104844
Revised: April 14, 2025
Accepted: May 16, 2025
Published online: July 19, 2025
Processing time: 118 Days and 18.5 Hours
Newborns with low-birth-weight may lag behind those with normal-birth-weight in terms of growth, development, and nutritional status, which increases mothers’ concerns about the child’s future health and leads to anxiety and depression. Providing nutritional support to newborns with low-birth-weight to facilitate optimal growth and development may help alleviate maternal anxiety and depre
To explore the effects of nutritional support timing on the growth and develop
A total of 64 newborns born under 2 kg and their mothers who received treatment at the neonatology department of Suzhou Ninth Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from January 2023 to October 2024 were selected and retrospectively evaluated. Newborns were then divided into the following two groups according to the start time of enteral nutrition support: Group S (32 cases, receiving enteral nutrition support within 24 hour of birth) and Group L (32 cases, receiving enteral nutrition support after 24 hour of birth). Thereafter, we compared the baseline data, as well as the milk intake and total bilirubin (TBIL) values, between the two groups at 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks after nutritional support. We also compared the occurrence of adverse digestive reactions (vomiting, bloating, constipation, diarrhea, and residual symptoms), complications (neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis and infection), growth and development indicators (weight, length, and head circumference) before and after nutritional support between the two groups of patients, as well as their mother’s anxiety [evaluated using the Self Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS)] and depression [evaluated using the Self Rating Depression Scale (SDS)].
No significant difference in baseline data was observed between the two groups (P > 0.05). Milk intake and TBIL levels in Group S were significantly better than those in Group L at 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks after nutritional support (P < 0.05). No significant differences in vomiting, abdominal distension, constipation, diarrhea, and residual adverse reactions were observed between the two groups during nutritional support (P > 0.05). Group S had a significantly reduce of fewer complications (i.e., neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis and infection) than did Group L during nutritional support (P < 0.05). Before nutritional support, no significant differences in developmental indicators (weight, length, and head circumference) were noted between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, after nutritional support, the weight, length, and head circumference of both groups were higher than those before intervention, with Group S having significantly higher values than did Group L (P < 0.05). Mothers of children who received nutritional support had decreased SAS and SDS scores, with Group S mothers having significantly lower scores than did Group L mothers (P < 0.05).
Enteral nutrition support had significant effects on newborns weighing < 2 kg within 24 hours of birth. In particular, it promoted the maturation of gastrointestinal function, enhanced nutrient absorption, promoted optimal short-term growth and development, and alleviated the mother’s anxiety and depression.
Core Tip: Newborns born under 2 kg often have difficulty feeding due to small stomach capacity, as well as poor absorption and digestive functions, which can affect their growth and development. As such, mothers may feel worried, anxious, and depressed. This study focused on the introduction of enteral nutrition support within 24 hours of birth, which can promote maturity of gastrointestinal function, improve nutrition absorption, facilitate the best growth and development in the short-term, and play a positive role in alleviating the mother’s anxiety and depression.
- Citation: Gao L, Xu F, Yan J, Ma Y. Effects of different timing nutritional support on the growth and development < 2 kg newborns and mothers' anxiety and depression. World J Psychiatry 2025; 15(7): 104844
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3206/full/v15/i7/104844.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v15.i7.104844
The birth weight of newborns is an important indicator of national economic development and medical and health conditions[1]. Newborns can be divided into normal-birth-weight infants (i.e., those with a birth weight of 2.5–4.0 kg) and low-birth-weight infants (i.e., those with a birth weight < 2.5 kg) according to their weight within 1 hour after birth. Among low-birth-weight infants, those born weighing between 1.0 and 1.5 kg are also known as very-low-birth-weight infants, whereas those weighing < 1.0 kg is referred to as ultra-low-birth-weight infants[2]. Low-birth-weight in newborns can be attributed to several factors, such as premature birth, pregnancy complications, mental stress and anxiety during pregnancy, insufficient nutritional intake during pregnancy, history of adverse pregnancy and childbirth, and advanced age, among others[3,4]. Numerous studies have shown that newborns with low-birth-weight can easily develop symptoms of hypoglycemia and have significantly lagging growth, development, and nutritional status compared to those of normal-birth-weight infants[5,6]. Therefore, clinical attention should focus on nutritional intervention for low-birth-weight infants, and effective measures should be taken to enable them to achieve extrauterine catch-up growth. Additionally, several studies have shown that mothers of low-birth-weight infants experience stronger psychological stressors compared to mothers of normal-birth-weight infants, with the most common psychological stress reactions being maternal anxiety and depression[7-9]. These stress reactions may be attributed to increased maternal concern regarding less subcutaneous fat, poor insulation ability, poor respiratory and metabolic function, and increased risk of potential complications among low-birth-weight infants, which makes mothers prone to negative emotions, such as anxiety and depression. Clinical observations have found that neonates with a birth weight of < 2 kg generally have incomplete sucking and swallowing functions, small gastric volume, insufficient secretion of digestive enzymes, poor absorption and digestion functions, and feeding difficulties. Hence, nutritional support measures are needed to provide sufficient nutrients to the child and enhance the gastrointestinal function and resistance of pediatric patients[10]. However, no standardized nutritional management strategy currently exists for low-birth-weight infants in clinical practice. Different timings of nutritional support have varying effects on the short-term growth rate of newborns weighing < 2 kg. Moreover, it remains unclear whether short-term growth and development delays in low-birth-weight infants exacerbate their mothers’ postpartum anxiety and depression. Therefore, the current study analyzed the effects of different timings of nutritional support on the growth and development of newborns weighing < 2 kg and maternal anxiety and depression to provide reference for the selection of reasonable nutritional timing during clinical practice.
A total of 64 newborns born under 2 kg and their mothers who received treatment at the neonatology department of Suzhou Ninth Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from January 2023 to October 2024 were selected and retrospectively evaluated. Newborns were then divided into Group S and Group L according to the timing at which nutritional support was provided. Notably, Group S started enteral nutrition support within 24 hours of birth, whereas Group L started enteral nutrition support after 24 h of birth. In each group contained 32 cases.
The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Single live birth; (2) Birth weight < 2.0 kg; (3) Time from birth to neonatal consultation < 12 hour; (4) Mother’s age ≥ 18 years old; and (5) Mothers able to read, write, and communicate.
The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Congenital genetic metabolic diseases and chromosome abnormalities, such as skeletal myolysis, ataxia, diabetes, and epilepsy; (2) Children with severe heart and lung dysfunction; (3) Congenital malformations, such as esophageal atresia, duodenal obstruction, and pyloric hypertrophic stenosis, and surgical emergencies, such as intestinal perforation peritonitis and congenital gastric wall muscle layer defect perforation; (4) Children with muscle spasms; (5) Mothers who had a history of severe mental illness and personality disorders; (6) Presence of neonatal sepsis; and (7) Congenital immunodeficiency.
On the first day, all children received compound amino acid injections [China Resources Shuanghe Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; specifications: 20 mL: 1.2 g (total amino acids)] administered at a rate of 1.0 g/kg via intravenous drip according to medical advice. On the second day, fat emulsion injections (Fresenius Kabi Austria GmbH; specifications: 100 mL/20 g) was administered for treatment according to medical advice. The initial dose was 0.5–1.0 g/(kg/d), which was gradually increased to 3.0 g/(kg/d).
Based on the aforementioned nutritional support protocol, children in Group S started receiving enteral nutrition support within 24 hours of birth, whereas those in Group L started enteral nutrition support after 24 hours of birth. Specific enteral nutrition support methods involved appropriate oral breastfeeding according to the condition of the child. If conditions do not permit oral breastfeeding, nasogastric tube feeding was performed in place of breastfeeding. A silicone or polyurethane catheter with small and soft inner diameter was selected for nasogastric tube feeding of breast milk. The initial breastmilk dose was 5–15 mL/d administered once every 2–3 hours, with the milk volume being gradually increased or decreased according to the child’s feeding tolerance. During the feeding process, the condition of the child was observed at all times. If feeding intolerance occurs, a specialized nutrition channel through peripheral central venous catheterization was opened, after which 24-hour uniform infusion of sodium glycerophosphate, various trace elements, calcium gluconate, fat- and water-soluble vitamins was administered. When the child was able to consume milk independently at a rate of 100 kcal/kg, intravenous nutrition was stopped. Both groups of children received continuous nutritional support for 4 weeks.
Baseline data: Gestational age, delivery mode, sex, birth weight, birth length, birth head circumference in the two groups of children, as well as the age, birth history, education level, and high-risk factors in pregnancy (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, and hypothyroidism during pregnancy) of the mothers and the children in the two groups, was compared.
Nutritional intake: Changes in milk intake and total bilirubin (TBIL) levels between two groups of children were compared after 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks of nutritional support.
Digestive function: Adverse digestive reactions during nutritional support, including frequent vomiting (≥ 3 times/day), abdominal distension, constipation, diarrhea, and residual symptoms, were compared between the two groups of children.
Complications: Incidences of complications during the period of nutritional support, including neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis, and infections, were observed and compared between two groups of children.
Growth and development: Weight, length, and head circumference indicators were compared between the two groups of children before and after nutritional support.
Mother’s anxiety and depression: The anxiety and depression status of mothers before and after nutritional support were evaluated using the Self Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS)[11] and the Self Rating Depression Scale (SDS)[12], respectively. Each scale consists of 20 items and is scored using a 4-point rating system. Positively scored questions are scored from 1–4 points with “no or very infrequently” to “most or all the time”, whereas negatively scored questions are scored from 4–1 points. The sum of the scores for each item represents the total gross score, and the standard score is equal to the gross score multiplied by 1.25 times and taken as an integer. SAS scores of ≥ 50 indicated the presence of anxiety among mothers, with higher scores indicating more severe anxiety. SDS scores of ≥ 53 indicate the presence of depression, with higher scores indicating more severe depression.
SPSS 25.0 statistical was used for data analysis. Normality of measurement data distribution was first confirmed using the S-W method, expressed as mean ± SD. Independent samples t-test was used for comparisons between the two groups. Count data were expressed as number and constituent ratio n (%) and were compared using the χ² test. In all analyses, P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.
No significant difference in gestational age, delivery mode, sex, birth weight, birth length, birth head circumference, mother’s age, mother’s fertility history, mother’s education level, and mother’s high-risk factors during pregnancy were observed between the two groups (P > 0.05; Table 1).
Baseline information | Group S (n = 32) | Group L (n = 32) | t/χ2 value | P value |
Gestational age (weeks) | 31.87 ± 2.94 | 31.68 ± 3.21 | 0.267 | 0.806 |
Delivery method | 0.291 | 0.590 | ||
Caesarean section | 21 (65.63) | 23 (71.88) | ||
Natural childbirth | 11 (34.37) | 9 (28.12) | ||
Gender | 0.063 | 0.802 | ||
Male baby | 17 (53.13) | 18 (56.25) | ||
Female infant | 15 (46.87) | 14 (43.75) | ||
Birth weight (kg) | 1.63 ± 0.26 | 1.66 ± 0.32 | 0.412 | 0.682 |
Birth length (cm) | 41.15 ± 3.17 | 41.31 ± 3.28 | 0.198 | 0.843 |
Birth head circumference (cm) | 30.24 ± 3.63 | 30.22 ± 3.59 | 0.022 | 0.982 |
Mother's age (years) | 26.76 ± 4.28 | 26.48 ± 4.17 | 0.265 | 0.791 |
Mother's reproductive history | 0.066 | 0.798 | ||
Primipara | 19 (59.38) | 20 (62.50) | ||
Multipara | 13 (40.62) | 12 (37.50) | ||
Mother education degree | 1.036 | 0.309 | ||
High school and below | 15 (46.87) | 11 (34.37) | ||
College or higher | 17 (53.13) | 21 (65.63) | ||
Maternal high risk factors during pregnancy | ||||
Gestational diabetes mellitus | 6 (18.75) | 7 (21.88) | 0.097 | 0.756 |
Gestational hypertension | 13 (40.63) | 10 (31.25) | 0.611 | 0.434 |
Gestational hypothyroidism | 5 (15.63) | 3 (9.38) | 0.571 | 0.450 |
Milk intake in Group S during the first (14.72 ± 3.43 mL/kg/d), second (48.95 ± 11.24 mL/kg/d), third (75.38 ± 16.57 mL/kg/d) and fourth weeks (98.43 ± 19.16 mL/kg/d) after initiating nutritional support was significantly higher than that in Group L during the corresponding weeks (11.35 ± 2.98, 40.86 ± 11.71, 66.32 ± 14.75, and 89.05 ± 17.98 mL/kg/d, respectively) (P < 0.05). This finding demonstrated that the nutritional support protocol in Group S effectively enhanced milk intake in pediatric patients (Table 2).
Milk volume (mL/kg/d) | Group S (n = 32) | Group L (n = 32) | t value | P value |
1 week | 14.72 ± 3.43 | 11.35 ± 2.98 | 4.196 | < 0.001 |
2 weeks | 48.95 ± 11.24 | 40.86 ± 11.71 | 2.819 | 0.006 |
3 weeks | 75.38 ± 16.57 | 66.32 ± 14.75 | 2.310 | 0.024 |
4 weeks | 98.43 ± 19.16 | 89.05 ± 17.98 | 2.019 | 0.048 |
TBIL levels in Group S during the first (64.85 ± 7.98 μmol/L), second (85.42 ± 13.16 μmol/L), third (60.19 ± 10.45 μmol/L), and fourth week (50.35 ± 9.49 μmol/L) after initiating nutritional support were significantly lower than those in Group L during the corresponding weeks (74.65 ± 9.67, 93.92 ± 14.83, 69.45 ± 11.37, and 60.18 ± 10.18 μmol/L, respectively) (P < 0.05; Table 3).
Total bilirubin (µmol/L) | Group S (n = 32) | Group L (n = 32) | t value | P value |
1 week | 64.85 ± 7.98 | 74.65 ± 9.67 | 4.422 | < 0.001 |
2 weeks | 85.42 ± 13.16 | 93.92 ± 14.83 | 2.425 | 0.018 |
3 weeks | 60.19 ± 10.45 | 69.45 ± 11.37 | 3.392 | 0.001 |
4 weeks | 50.35 ± 9.49 | 60.18 ± 10.18 | 3.996 | < 0.001 |
During the period of nutritional support, four cases of vomiting, five cases of abdominal distension, four cases of constipation, one case of diarrhea, and two cases of residual reactions occurred in Group S. During the period of nutritional support and feeding, only one case of vomiting, three cases of abdominal distension, six cases of constipation, three cases of diarrhea, and four cases of residual occurred in Group L. No significant difference in adverse digestive reactions during nutritional support was observed between the two groups (P > 0.05; Table 4).
Digestive adverse reactions | Group S (n = 32) | Group L (n = 32) | χ² value | P value |
Vomiting | 4 (12.50) | 1 (3.13) | 0.868 | 0.352 |
Abdominal distension | 5 (15.63) | 3 (9.38) | 0.143 | 0.705 |
Constipation | 4 (12.50) | 6 (18.75) | 0.119 | 0.731 |
Diarrhea | 1 (3.13) | 3 (9.38) | 0.267 | 0.606 |
Residual | 2 (6.25) | 4 (12.50) | 0.184 | 0.668 |
Incidences of neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis and infection complications were significantly lower in Group S than in Group L during nutritional support (P < 0.05; Table 5).
Complication | Group S (n = 32) | Group L (n = 32) | χ² value | P value |
Neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis | 1 (3.13) | 7 (21.88) | 5.143 | 0.023 |
Infection | 1 (3.13) | 6 (18.75) | 4.010 | 0.045 |
Before nutritional support, no significant difference in developmental indicators (weight, length, and head circumference) was observed between the two groups (P > 0.05). After nutritional support, weight, length, and head circumference of both groups of children were higher than those before the intervention, with Group S having significant higher measurements than did Group L (P < 0.05; Table 6).
Index | Stage | Group S (n = 32) | Group L (n = 32) | t value | P value |
Weight (kg) | Before intervention | 1.63 ± 0.26 | 1.66 ± 0.32 | 0.412 | 0.682 |
After intervention | 2.48 ± 0.51a | 2.19 ± 0.39a | 2.555 | 0.013 | |
length (cm) | Before intervention | 41.15 ± 3.17 | 41.31 ± 3.28 | 0.198 | 0.843 |
After intervention | 48.69 ± 5.15a | 46.08 ± 5.03a | 2.051 | 0.045 | |
Head circumference (cm) | Before intervention | 30.24 ± 3.63 | 30.22 ± 3.59 | 0.022 | 0.982 |
After intervention | 33.95 ± 2.28a | 32.45 ± 2.06a | 2.761 | 0.007 |
Before receiving nutritional support, no significant difference in SAS and SDS scores were observed between mothers of two groups (P > 0.05). SAS and SDS scores of the mothers were lower after than before receiving nutritional support, with Group S mothers having significantly higher scores than did Group L mothers (P < 0.05; Table 7).
Mother's psychological condition | Stage | Group S (n = 32) | Group L (n = 32) | t value | P value |
SAS score (divide) | Before intervention | 68.49 ± 13.27 | 68.07 ± 12.85 | 0.129 | 0.898 |
After intervention | 50.25 ± 6.43a | 56.24 ± 9.38a | 2.980 | 0.004 | |
SDS score (divide) | Before intervention | 62.83 ± 12.96 | 62.11 ± 12.61 | 0.225 | 0.823 |
After intervention | 48.17 ± 5.82a | 53.38 ± 5.73a | 3.609 | 0.001 |
The incidence rate of low-birth-weight among infants in China has been reported to range from 3%–3.5%[13,14]. Newborns with low-birth-weight (< 2 kg), which is mainly caused by intrauterine malnutrition (intrauterine growth retardation) or insufficient gestation time (premature birth), are unable to achieve normal maturity and are highly susceptible to various diseases, such as bilirubinemia, neurological disorders, and retinopathy. Moreover, mothers of such newborns have been found to experience psychological fluctuations due to concerns about their children’s health, thereby generating negative emotions. Nutritional support is an important strategy for improving the nutritional function of low-birth-weight infants. However, no unified guideline is currently available regarding the reasonable timing for providing nutritional support. Given the insufficient intrauterine nutritional reserves and immature gastrointestinal development in low-birth-weight infants, feeding intolerance can easily occur during early feeding. Morgan et al[15] found that delaying nutritional intervention increases the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis among low-birth-weight infants. This finding suggests that delaying feeding time due to concerns about feeding intolerance among low-birth-weight infants during early feeding may increase the risk of other clinical complications. Therefore, the timing of nutritional support for newborns with low-birth-weight has become a key issue discussed by many scholars. To better weigh the advantages and disadvantages of nutritional support for newborns with low-birth-weight (< 2 kg), as well as explore the impact of its timing, improvement of their gastrointestinal function and resistance, promotion of their growth and development, and reduction in the risk of related diseases, which in turn reduces the psychological stress among mothers, need to be considered.
Breast milk is the preferred source of enteral nutrition for newborns given that it is highly digestible and contains many anti-infective ingredients that can reduce the risk of infection[16]. Early introduction of enteral breast milk nutrition support can meet the protein and mineral requirements of low-birth-weight infants for rapid growth[17]. In our study, we compared children in Group S who started receiving enteral nutrition support within 24 hours of birth with those in Group L who started receiving enteral nutrition support after 24 h of birth. Accordingly, we found that milk volume and TBIL levels at 1, 2, 3 m and 4 weeks after the start of nutritional support were significantly better in Group S than in Group L (P < 0.05). This finding shows that starting enteral nutrition support earlier for newborns with a birth weight of < 2 kg could produce more obvious increases in early milk volume. Stimulating the digestive system through food can effectively promote the development of gastrointestinal function and improve the absorption of nutrients, thereby increasing the volume of milk tolerated. Second, effective nutritional support can promote the gradual maturation of liver function of the children, which is conducive to the transport and metabolism of bilirubin, thereby gradually decreasing TBIL levels. Research has shown that changes in the gut microbiota can lead to feeding intolerance in preterm infants, which can cause gastrointestinal discomfort, such as bloating and diarrhea[18]. However, Shen et al[19] confirmed that starting enteral feeding within 24 hours of birth among low-birth-weight infants had no effect on the diversity and richness of gut microbiota. This finding supports the results of this study, which found no significant difference in adverse digestive reactions (vomiting, bloating, constipation, diarrhea, residual reactions) between Group S and Group L when enteral nutrition support was started within 24 hours. Our results also suggest that starting enteral nutrition support within 24 hours among newborns with a birth weight of < 2 kg was safe and feasible and does not alter the intestinal microflora or increase adverse digestive reactions, such as vomiting, abdominal distension, diarrhea, and residual symptoms caused by feeding intolerance. Lange et al[20] found that early enteral breastfeeding in low-birth-weight infants can reduce the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis. Moreover, Pammi et al[21] found that early enteral supplementation of lactoferrin can prevent sepsis caused by bacterial and fungal infections. Klevebro et al[22] also found that early nutritional intake for premature infants can reduce respiratory diseases caused by bronchopulmonary dysplasia, as well as reduce retinopathy of prematurity. Although these studies all highlight the importance of early nutritional support for premature/birth weight infants, they fail to mention the specific timing of early nutritional support. To address this matter, the current study found that the incidence of neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis and infection complications in Group S was lower than that in Group L (P < 0.05), which is consistent with the research conclusions presented in the foreminded studies. As such, clinical implementation of enteral nutrition support within 24 h of newborns with a birth weight of < 2 kg can ensure sufficient nutritional intake, promote organ development, and reduce the risk of neonatal diseases. The weight, length, and head circumference of newborns have been the primary evaluation indicators for the growth and development of low-birth-weight infants after early nutrient intake. Donovan et al[23] found that low-birth-weight infants who received enteral nutrition support within 24 hours of birth showed an overall trend of weight gain in weeks 3 and 4. This result is similar to those observed in the current study, wherein the weight, length, and head circumference after enteral nutrition support were better in Group S than in Group L. This finding also suggests that enteral nutrition support for newborns < 2 kg within 24 hours of birth can indeed effectively improve physical development, promote optimal growth, and help to achieve extrauterine catch-up growth.
Low-birth-weight infants can face various health challenges, such as pneumonia and hypoglycemia and therefore require special in-hospital treatment and care to ensure healthy growth. However, this type of care can limit the connection between the mother and the baby, which could be a source of worry among mothers who are concerned about the changes in the condition and prognosis of their child. This worry can lead to a depressed mood and restlessness, making mother prone to anxiety, depression, and other negative emotions[24-26]. In the current study, mothers of children with a birth weight of < 2 kg showed a decrease in their SAS scores for anxiety and SDS scores for depression after nutritional support compared to those before the intervention. This phenomenon could be attributed to the improvement in the growth and development of the child after receiving nutritional support, which to some extent alleviates the psychological pressure on the mother. Sisk et al[27] found that breastfeeding of low-birth-weight infants can reduce maternal postpartum stress and anxiety as breast milk intake increases. Our results also showed that after nutritional support, the SAS scores for anxiety and SDS scores for depression in Group S mothers were significantly lower than those in Group L, mirroring the aforementioned results. This finding could be attributed to the significant increase in early milk volume (breast milk) consumed, the significant decrease in TBIL level, and significant improvement in gastrointestinal function and resistance, which can decrease the risk of complications, promote growth and development, and facilitate extrauterine catch-up growth among children in Group S after receiving enteral nutrition support within 24 hours of birth. These advantages can directly reduce the mother’s concerns about the health of their child, thereby reducing their negative emotions, such as anxiety and depression. McCarty et al[28] found that delayed infant development can increase parental anxiety and depression. In the current study, Group L started enteral nutrition support 24 hours after birth but failed to achieve optimal growth and development in the short-term, resulting in higher levels of anxiety and depression among their mothers.
Some limitations of this study need to be noted. This study was conducted at a single center and included a small sample size, thereby limiting generalizability of our results. Hence, a study involving multiple centers and a large sample size is still needed to support the conclusions. Nonetheless, this study confirmed the significance of enteral nutrition support in newborns weighing < 2 kg within 24 hours of birth, particularly in promoting optimal growth and development and, to some extent, reducing the negative emotions, such as anxiety and depression, among mothers.
The timing of nutritional support has a certain impact on the short-term growth and development indicators of newborns with a birth weight of < 2 kg. Compared to enteral nutrition support after 24 h of birth, enteral nutrition support within 24 hours of birth was more conducive to promoting gastrointestinal function maturation, improving nutrition absorption, achieving optimal growth and development, reducing maternal concerns, and alleviating maternal anxiety and depression.
1. | Tariqujjaman M, Tanha AF, Rahman M, Karmakar G, Mahfuz M, Hasan MM, Rahman AE, Ahmed A, Arifeen SE, Ahmed T, Sarma H. Geographical variation, socioeconomic inequalities of low birth weight, and its relationship with maternal dietary diversity: Insights from the maternal infant and young child nutrition programme in Bangladesh. J Glob Health. 2024;14:04209. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in RCA: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
2. | Lin HJ, Du LZ, Ma XL, Shi LP, Pan JH, Tong XM, Li QP, Zhou JG, Yi B, Liu L, Chen YB, Wei QF, Wu HQ, Li M, Liu CQ, Gao XR, Xia SW, Li WB, Yan CY, He L, Liang K, Zhou XY, Han SP, Lyu Q, Qiu YP, Li W, Chen DM, Lu HR, Liu XH, Liu H, Lin ZL, Liu L, Zhu JJ, Xiong H, Yue SJ, Zhuang SQ. Mortality and Morbidity of Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants in the Mainland of China: A Multi-center Study. Chin Med J (Engl). 2015;128:2743-2750. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)] [Cited by in Crossref: 32] [Cited by in RCA: 42] [Article Influence: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
3. | Wachamo TM, Bililign Yimer N, Bizuneh AD. Risk factors for low birth weight in hospitals of North Wello zone, Ethiopia: A case-control study. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0213054. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)] [Cited by in Crossref: 20] [Cited by in RCA: 19] [Article Influence: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
4. | Ahmed ABA. Association between maternal undernutrition among Sudanese women and newborn birth weight. J Family Med Prim Care. 2022;11:2824-2827. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)] [Cited by in RCA: 3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
5. | Chen YS, Ho CH, Lin SJ, Tsai WH. Identifying additional risk factors for early asymptomatic neonatal hypoglycemia in term and late preterm babies. Pediatr Neonatol. 2022;63:625-632. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in RCA: 9] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
6. | Wang LY, Wang LY, Wang YL, Ho CH. Early neonatal hypoglycemia in term and late preterm small for gestational age newborns. Pediatr Neonatol. 2023;64:538-546. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in RCA: 7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
7. | Tane R, Masitoh S, Rustina Y. Factors influencing anxiety in mothers of low birth weight infants. Pediatr Rep. 2020;12:8701. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)] [Cited by in RCA: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
8. | Greene MM, Rossman B, Patra K, Kratovil AL, Janes JE, Meier PP. Depression, anxiety, and perinatal-specific posttraumatic distress in mothers of very low birth weight infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2015;36:362-370. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 87] [Cited by in RCA: 92] [Article Influence: 9.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
9. | Hernández-Martínez C, Val VA, Murphy M, Busquets PC, Sans JC. Relation between positive and negative maternal emotional states and obstetrical outcomes. Women Health. 2011;51:124-135. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 23] [Cited by in RCA: 29] [Article Influence: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
10. | Kennedy KA, Tyson JE, Chamnanvanikij S. Early versus delayed initiation of progressive enteral feedings for parenterally fed low birth weight or preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;CD001970. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 45] [Cited by in RCA: 42] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
11. | Zung WW. A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosomatics. 1971;12:371-379. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 2251] [Cited by in RCA: 2723] [Article Influence: 50.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
12. | ZUNG WW. A SELF-RATING DEPRESSION SCALE. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1965;12:63-70. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 5900] [Cited by in RCA: 6017] [Article Influence: 207.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
13. | Zhang Q, Wang LL, Bai RH, Dang SN, Yan H. [Effect of interpregnancy interval of childbearing aged women on birth weight of single live birth neonates]. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2018;39:317-321. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in RCA: 3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
14. | Shi G, Zhang B, Kang Y, Dang S, Yan H. Association of Short and Long Interpregnancy Intervals with Adverse Birth Outcomes: Evidence from a Cross-Sectional Study in Northwest China. Int J Gen Med. 2021;14:2871-2881. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in RCA: 13] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
15. | Morgan J, Young L, McGuire W. Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;CD001241. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 41] [Cited by in RCA: 37] [Article Influence: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
16. | Thanigainathan S, Abiramalatha T. Early fortification of human milk versus late fortification to promote growth in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;7:CD013392. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in RCA: 19] [Article Influence: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
17. | Groh-Wargo S, Sapsford A. Enteral nutrition support of the preterm infant in the neonatal intensive care unit. Nutr Clin Pract. 2009;24:363-376. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 31] [Cited by in RCA: 33] [Article Influence: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
18. | Hu X, Chang Y, Wang Z, Bao W, Li Z. Altered gut microbiota is associated with feeding intolerance in preterm infants. Turk J Pediatr. 2021;63:206-217. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in RCA: 8] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
19. | Shen YJ, Li LQ, Wei L, Zhang XH, Zhao WJ, Liu XC, Wu LP. [Influence of enteral feeding initiation time on intestinal flora and metabolites in very low birth weight infants: a prospective study]. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi. 2022;24:433-439. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in RCA: 3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
20. | Lange M, Figura Y, Böhne C, Beske F, Heep A, Bohnhorst B. Management of Enteral Feeding and Application of Probiotics in Very Low Birth Weight Infants - A National Survey in German NICUs. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2023;227:51-57. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in RCA: 1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
21. | Pammi M, Suresh G. Enteral lactoferrin supplementation for prevention of sepsis and necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6:CD007137. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 68] [Cited by in RCA: 90] [Article Influence: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
22. | Klevebro S, Westin V, Stoltz Sjöström E, Norman M, Domellöf M, Edstedt Bonamy AK, Hallberg B. Early energy and protein intakes and associations with growth, BPD, and ROP in extremely preterm infants. Clin Nutr. 2019;38:1289-1295. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 34] [Cited by in RCA: 53] [Article Influence: 7.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
23. | Donovan R, Puppala B, Angst D, Coyle BW. Outcomes of early nutrition support in extremely low-birth-weight infants. Nutr Clin Pract. 2006;21:395-400. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 40] [Cited by in RCA: 37] [Article Influence: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
24. | Garfield L, Holditch-Davis D, Carter CS, McFarlin BL, Schwertz D, Seng JS, Giurgescu C, White-Traut R. Risk factors for postpartum depressive symptoms in low-income women with very low-birth-weight infants. Adv Neonatal Care. 2015;15:E3-E8. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 29] [Cited by in RCA: 39] [Article Influence: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
25. | Helle N, Barkmann C, Ehrhardt S, von der Wense A, Nestoriuc Y, Bindt C. Postpartum anxiety and adjustment disorders in parents of infants with very low birth weight: Cross-sectional results from a controlled multicentre cohort study. J Affect Disord. 2016;194:128-134. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 34] [Cited by in RCA: 36] [Article Influence: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
26. | Sandnes R, Le Floch M, Riquin E, Nocus I, Müller JB, Bacro F. Parental stress and mental health outcomes following very preterm birth: A systematic review of recent findings. J Affect Disord. 2024;355:513-525. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in RCA: 12] [Article Influence: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
27. | Sisk PM, Lovelady CA, Dillard RG, Gruber KJ. Lactation counseling for mothers of very low birth weight infants: effect on maternal anxiety and infant intake of human milk. Pediatrics. 2006;117:e67-e75. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 125] [Cited by in RCA: 117] [Article Influence: 6.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
28. | McCarty DB, Dusing SC, Thorpe D, Weinberger M, Pusek S, Gilbert A, Liu T, Blazek K, Hammond S, O'Shea TM. A Feasibility Study of a Physical and Occupational Therapy-Led and Parent-Administered Program to Improve Parent Mental Health and Infant Development. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2024;44:316-335. [RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in RCA: 4] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |