NURS 5366 Texas Tech University Research Non Nutritive Sucking Article Appraisal This paper is for a specific course in nursing called principles of resear

NURS 5366 Texas Tech University Research Non Nutritive Sucking Article Appraisal This paper is for a specific course in nursing called principles of research in nursing, does not require the textbook but does require the attached article as a resource. Other source material is not needed as well. This paper will include/identify: the sample, measurement methods, collecting and managing data, data analysis, researchers interpretation of findings, legal and ethical issues, and an evaluation. 6-10 pages, attached is the article and further requirements. 53
Evidence Based Care Journal, 7 (1): 53-59
Original Article
Comparing the Effect of Non-nutritive Sucking and
Abdominal Massage on Feeding Tolerance in Preterm
Newborns
Saideh Marzieh Fazli1, Ashraf Mohamadzadeh2, Maryam Salari 3, Soheila Karbandi4 *
Received: 28/12/2016
Accepted: 20/03/2017
Evidence Based Care Journal, 7 (1): 53-59
Abstract
Background: Enteral feeding intolerance is a major problem in the preterm neonates. Non-nutritive
sucking and abdominal massage are among the most important nutritional interventions in this regard.
Aim: This study aimed to compare the effect of non-nutritive sucking and abdominal massage on
feeding tolerance in the preterm newborns.
Method: This clinical trial was conducted on 52 preterm neonates in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
of Imam Reza Hospital in Mashhad, Iran. The subjects were randomly divided into three groups,
namely abdominal massage (17 newborns), non-nutritive sucking (18 newborns), and control groups
(17 newborns). In the abdominal massage group, the intervention was fulfilled for 15 min twice a day,
and in the non-nutritive sucking group, the intervention was performed for 10 min three times a day
within 7 days. The control group only received tube feeding every two h without any intervention.
Feeding tolerance was examined in terms of gastric residuals, vomiting, and abdominal distention.
The data were collected through the recording daily information form. The data were analyzed
through SPSS version 23, using ANOVA test and marginal models.
Results: The mean gestational age of the abdominal massage group was 32.8±1.0 weeks. This value
was 32.5±1.3 weeks in both sucking and control groups. Generalized estimating equation revealed
that non-nutritive sucking was effective in the absence of distention (P=0.01) and vomiting (P=0.01).
However, abdominal massage was effective only in the absence of vomiting (P=0.01).
Implications for Practice: The use of non-nutritive sucking can increase the feeding tolerance in the
preterm newborns.
Keywords: Feeding tolerance, Abdominal massage, Non-nutritive sucking, Preterm infants
1. MSc in Neonatal Intensive Care Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences,
Mashhad, Iran
2. Professor of Neonatology, Neonatal Research Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of
Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
3. The Expert Responsible for the Statistics and Information Technology Management, Mashhad University of Medical
Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
4. Instructor of Nursing, Evidence-based Care Research Center, Department of Pediatric Nursing, School of Nursing and
Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
* Corresponding author, Email: karbandis@mums.ac.ir
Downloaded from http://ebcj.mums.ac.ir/ at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences on April 01, 2017
Fazli et al. Effect of Non-nutritive Sucking and Abdominal Massage on Feeding Tolerance
54
Introduction
The live newborns who are born before the 37 th week of gestation after the first day of the last
menstrual period are referred to as preterm neonates by the World Health Organization (1). The
preterm newborns are one of the groups with the highest rates of neonatal mortality and morbidity so
that two-thirds of infant mortality are caused by preterm birth (2). Since the e arly feeding behaviors,
such as sucking and swallowing, are prerequisite to secondary behaviors (e.g., speech), any disruption
in these actions will have a direct impact on the future development of the verbal and communication
skills in the infants (3).
Nutritional care is of vital importance to the preterm neonates that have been deprived of the placental
food reserves and are experiencing a rapid ectopic growth. Neonatal nurses can have a better
evaluation of the newborn status, feeding control, and feeding methods as well as the prevention of
the complications caused by alternative nutritional methods (e.g., parenteral nutrition practices when
they are equipped with information about the effects of prematurity on the function of the digestive
system and nutritional needs of the preterm and high-risk newborns), (4).
The nutritional problems in the preterm neonates prevent them from reaching independent oral
feeding. As a result, the majority of such babies are transferred to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
(NICU) after birth and fed by tube through the nose or mouth. This type of feeding impairs the act of
sucking and its motor development in these newborns and also brings about feeding problems in the
long run (3).
Some nutritional problems caused by tube feeding include non-organized sucking pattern, lack of
coordination in sucking, swallowing, and breathing, as well as oversensitivity to the touch of areas
around or inside the mouth. Furthermore, this type of feeding prevents the proper mother-infant
interaction during the feeding process (3). Feeding intolerance is a common phenomenon in the
NICUs, which is observed in 16-19% of the preterm neonates. Regarding the relationship between the
feeding intolerance and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) (i.e., a gastrointestinal emergency and one of
the causes of the neonatal mortality), the NICU medical team pays attention to any symptoms of
feeding intolerance (5).
The enteral feeding intolerance is a major problem in the preterm newborns, which leads to
longer hospitalization, increased infection risk, and prolonged parenteral nutrition (6). The
delayed enteral nutrition in the preterm neonates with feeding intolerance leads to the incidence
of intestinal problems, such as delayed intestinal growth and calorie deficit. Gastric residuals are
common in these newborns, the elevation of this condition is considered as a symptom of feeding
intolerance or NEC. In the nursing care program of the preterm neonates, the gastric residueals
are considered among the criteria determining the increase of feeding volume or the stoppage of
feeding (7).
Non-nutritive sucking may stimulate the gastric motor function, and thereby facilitate the digestion
of enteral nutrition. This effect occurs through the activity of vagal mechanisms by stimulating the
nerve fibers in the oral cavity. The vagus nerve activity affects the levels of digestive hormones,
such as gastrin and somatostatin. Gastrin secretion is required for acid secretion, gastric motility,
and growth of the intestinal lining. The reduction of somatostatin increases the gastric emptying (8).
In an attempt to investigate the impact of non-nutritive sucking on gastric emptying, Vidstrom et al.
(2000) measured and recorded the volume of gastric contents three hours after feeding. The results of
their study did not show any significant difference between the groups at the time of emptying (9).
However, in a study conducted by Zhao (2004), significant results were reported for the impact of
non-nutritive sucking on gastric residuals (10).
Sensory stimulation is among the basic needs of humans, especially for their growth and evolution.
However, the preterm neonates are deprived of the tactile stimulation due to the limitations arising
from the care necessity and sometimes because of the isolation periods (11). Massage leads to an
increase in the level of serotonin and vagal activity. It also lowers the stress level and colic hormones.
In addition, massage helps regulate sleep and increases the motor development, coordination, balance,
and weight in the infants (6).
The feeding intolerance is a serious problem in the preterm neonates, which bears evident negative
effects on this population. Various studies has reported different results regarding the effect of the
non-nutritive sucking and massage. Nonetheless, these methods have not been still compared with
each other in any study, and it is not known which method is more suitable for the clinical application.
Downloaded from http://ebcj.mums.ac.ir/ at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences on April 01, 2017
55
Evidence Based Care Journal, 7 (1): 53-59
With this background in mind, the current study was conducted to determine the effects of abdominal
massage and non-nutritive sucking on feeding tolerance (i.e., level of gastric residuals, abdominal
distention, and the frequency of vomiting) in the preterm neonates and compare these two methods.
This study attempted to obtain an effective and applicable method for the improvement of feeding
tolerance in the preterm neonates in order to optimize the neonatal growth and their respective
passage of transitional stage.
Methods
This clinical trial was conducted on 52 preterm neonates in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU)
of Imam Reza Hospital in Mashhad, Iran, within September, 2015-January, 2016. Based on the
previous studies (e.g., Assadollah-Pour), the sample size was calculated to be 18 cases for each group
with the confidence level of 95% and statistical power of 80%. Considering the drop probability of
10% in each group, the sample size was determined to be 20 subjects in each group.
Out of the 60 neonates participating in the study, eight subjects were excluded from the study.
Accordingly, two neonates were excluded in the non-nutritive sucking group due to the parental
dissatisfaction with the continuation of the intervention and having nothing by mouth (NPO) for more
than 24 h, respectively. Similarly, two newborns were excluded from the abdominal massage group
due to the same reasons. In addition, in the control group, three neonate were excluded because of the
NEC diagnosis, showing positive blood culture during the study, and having NPO more than 24 h,
respectively. Eventually, the study was proceeded with 52 newborns, i.e., 17, 18, and 17 neonates in
the abdominal massage, non-nutritive sucking, and control groups, respectively.
The inclusion criteria were: 1) the chronological age of 48 h or less, 2) gestational age of 30-34
weeks, 3) tube-feeding, 4) Apgar score of 7 and above in the fifth minute, 5) absence of acute
respiratory distress, 6) no need for mechanical ventilation, 7) mother’s non-addiction, 8) birth weight
of 1200 g or higher, 9) enjoyment of apparent health and not suffering from major congenital diseases
(e.g., severe congenital heart disease, digestive system abnormalities, nervous system abnormalities,
and genetic disorders), 10) no signs and symptoms of infection, and 11) the absence of cleft lip and
palate.
On the other hand, the exclusion criteria included: 1) grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage, 2)
NEC, 3) positive blood culture at birth, 4) sepsis, and 5) having NPO for at most 24 h after the onset
of enteral nutrition. The data were collected using such instruments as demographic characteristics
and recording daily information forms. These tools were confirmed in terms of the content validity,
and were then given to the seven members of the Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery of Mashhad, and
were finally used in the study after incorporating the necessary amendments.
These forms included clear statements and questions that have been frequently used in other studies,
and thereby their reliability has been confirmed. To ensure the reliability of the data, the authenticity
of the scale was approved with a fixed 500-gram weight each day before weighing the neonates. After
obtaining the approval of the Ethics Committee and the university, the researchers visited the parents
of the eligible preterm newborns and informed them about the study objectives, methodology, and
procedure.
After obtaining the parental consent, the eligible infants were randomly assigned into one of the
three study groups, i.e., non-nutritive sucking, abdominal massage, and control. To this aim, 20
random numbers were selected using the table of random numbers from 0 to 14. The selected
numbers 0-4, 5-9, and 10-14 were named ABC, BCA, and CAB, respectively. Then, 20 ABC, BCA,
and CAB terms were obtained, which came together as a string and 20 sample units were placed in
each group (i.e., A: abdominal massage group, B: non-nutritive sucking and group, and C: control
group).
In the non-nutritive sucking group, the researcher put his little finger gently into the baby mouth after
light stimulation of the lower lip 5 min before feeding, and stimulated the newborn’s sucking reflexes
by moving the finger in the neonate’s mouth. Then, the sucking was started and continued in the first
5 min of feeding, and the newborn feeding was performed simultaneously through catheter.
When the newborn’s sucking was stopped during the intervention, the gentle shaking of the finger
encouraged him/her to continue sucking. This intervention was performed three times a day (i.e., at 8,
12, and 16 o’clock). It should be noted that the neonates were routinely fed every two hours (at even
hours) in the study environment.
Downloaded from http://ebcj.mums.ac.ir/ at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences on April 01, 2017
Fazli et al. Effect of Non-nutritive Sucking and Abdominal Massage on Feeding Tolerance
56
The abdominal massage group received massage twice a day (i.e., at 9 and 15), each time for 15 min
at least one hour after feeding. The massage was performed clockwise; accordingly, the hand was put
in a position with the little finger laying on the abdomen which was tapped downwards from below
the chest. The abdomen and the area around the navel received massage clockwise with fingertips in
circular forms. It continued on the right side of the neonate’s body upwards, and then on the left side
of the body downwards.
In the end, the newborn’s knees and legs were taken by the hand and the knees were slowly pushed up
towards his/her abdomen. Additionally, the neonate’s thigh was rotated several times to the right. On
the other hand, the newborns in the control group received no intervention and were fed normally
every 2 h by nasogastric tube.
The number of times each neonates had experienced vomiting was recoded using nurses’ reports or
the researcher’s observations. In addition, in case of the occurrence of distention (i.e., hard abdomen)
or gastric residual (i.e., the remaining of more than 50% of the milk volume of the previous meal in
the stomach), the presence of that variable was considered positive during the previous 24 h and
recorded in the relevant checklist.
The acceptance criteria of feeding tolerance included the presence of the gastric residuals of less than
half of the previous meal, no vomiting, and lack of distention. The intervention was performed within
the first 48 h of birth. Upon the admission of the newborns to the NICU, the stabilization of the
newborns’ conditions began and continued for seven days.
The data analysis was performed using the ANOVA, Chi-square, and Kruskal-Wallis tests as well as
the design of marginal models through the SPSS version 23. The dependent variables of this study
were measured over time. Considering the type of the collected data, the repeated measures analysis
was employed. In case the response variable does not meet the assumptions of the repeated measures
design, other methods of statistical analysis, such as marginal modeling, random-effects model, etc.
can be used.
Results
In this study, the results of the one-way ANOVA test revealed no significant difference between the
three groups in terms of the demographic variables of height, weight, head circumference at birth,
gestational age, first and fifth minute Apgar score, as well as maternal age. Consequently, the three
groups were homogeneous in terms of these variables (Table 1).
The generalized estimating equation and marginal modeling approach with logit link were used for
the analysis of the intervention effect on the distention and vomiting. Since this study aimed to
compare three groups, the group variable enters the model as the predictor, and the control group was
selected as the reference group.
According to Table 2, the abdominal massage had no significant effect on distention. However, the
intervention in the non-nutritive sucking group was significant so that the chance of elimination of
distention in this group was five times as much as that in the control group (P=0.001). As indicated in
Table 1. Comparison of demographic characteristics between the three groups
Abdominal massage Non-nutritive sucking
Control
ANOVA test
Groups Variables
Mean±SD
Mean±SD
Mean±SD
results
Gestational age (week)
32.8±1.0
32.5±1.3
32.5±1.3
P=0.73
Birth weight (gram)
1853.5±353.1
1836.3±322.0
1821.7±390.7
P=0.96
Height (centimeter)
43.5±3.1
43.3±2.5
42.4±3.0
P=0.51
Head circumference (centimeter)
30.6±1.9
30.6±1.8
30.7±1.9
P=0.96
First minute Apgar
7.9±0.8
7.7±0.9
7.7±0.9
P=0.82
Fifth minute Apgar
9±0.9
8.7±0.8
8.8±0.8
P=0.64
Maternal age (year)
30±7.4
27.5±6.9
26.8±6.2
P=0.37
Table 2. Coefficients of distention in the logistic model with generalized estimating equation method
Parameters
Parameter estimate
SD
Wald test statistic
P-value
Intercept
1.8
0.9
3.3
0.06
Abdominal massage group
0.6
0.3
2.8
0.09
Non-nutritive sucking group
1.8
0.5
11.9
0.001
Downloaded from http://ebcj.mums.ac.ir/ at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences on April 01, 2017
57
Evidence Based Care Journal, 7 (1): 53-59
Table 3. Coefficients of vomiting in the logistic model with generalized estimating equation method
Parameters
Parameter estimate
SD
Wald test statistic
P-value
Intercept
-2.3
1
5.5
0.01
Abdominal massage group
-1.1
0.4
6.6
0.01
Non-nutritive sucking group
-1.4
0.6
5.5
0.01
Table 4. Comparison of the incidence of the number of residues during the intervention days for each group
Abdominal massage
Non-nutritive sucking
Control
ANOVA test
Groups Variables
Mean±SD
Mean±SD
Mean±SD
results
The number of gastric
0.4±0.7
0.1±0.5
0.4±0.6
P=0.25
residuals (times per week)
eliminating vomiting (P
Purchase answer to see full
attachment