Cross-sectional study finds that education and multiparity influence breastfeeding motivation in postpartum Chinese women, suggesting targeted support is needed.
Background: Understanding breastfeeding motivation determinants is essential for woman-centred support. Limited evidence exists on factors influencing breastfeeding motivation among Chinese women, particularly through self-determination theory. Research Aim: This study investigated breastfeeding motivation levels and associated factors in Chinese postpartum women. Methods: A cross-sectional study recruited 222 postpartum women from a tertiary hospital in Shandong, China. Sociodemographic data were collected, and breastfeeding motivation was assessed at 6 weeks postpartum using the Breastfeeding Motivation Scale. Univariate analysis and multiple linear regression identified factors associated with autonomous and controlled motivation for breastfeeding. Results: Mean autonomous and controlled motivation scores for breastfeeding were 56.44 ± 8.14 and 25.44 ± 4.42, respectively. Multivariate linear regression revealed that multiparity ( β = 2.397, p = 0.011) and higher education ( β = 5.554, p = 0.021) were positively associated with autonomous motivation, whereas multiparity ( β = −1.446, p = 0.003) and higher education ( β = −2.508, p = 0.041) were negatively associated with controlled motivation. Caesarean delivery reduced both autonomous ( β = −1.921, p = 0.049) and controlled motivation ( β = −2.255, p < 0.001). Conventional antenatal education lowered autonomous motivation ( β = −6.777, p < 0.001) but increased controlled motivation ( β = 3.506, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Multiparity and higher education were associated with greater autonomous and lower controlled breastfeeding motivation, whereas conventional antenatal breastfeeding education showed the opposite pattern. Caesarean delivery was associated with lower levels of both motivation types. Autonomy-supportive prenatal programs may help promote sustained breastfeeding motivation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: