As far as is known, this is the first study comparing mother-infant dyads who are earthquake survivors with those who are non-earthquake survivors, demonstrating the effect of the earthquake on the rate of breast milk intake at the 6th month. The strengths of the study include the pre-determination of the sample size and the use of the breastfeeding self-efficacy scale and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale as assessment tools through face-to-face interviews with families in the study group.
A challenge encountered during the study was that it was conducted in an earthquake zone, leading many families to be reluctant to volunteer due to issues such as difficulties in transportation to the hospital. The control group was formed from a larger population after the interim evaluation, as the initial hospital interviews did not yield a sufficient number of participants. The addition of a larger population to the control group, which began as a single-center study, and the inclusion of 5 individuals from the earthquake zone during hospital interviews, provided a more appropriate representation of the control group in the study.
Earthquake-related physical and environmental characteristics, which were the main factors investigated in the study, were found more frequently in the study group, as expected. However, statistical comparisons could not be made in the control group due to a lack of data on these variables. The study revealed differences between the groups in several parameters, such as multiparity, timing of initiation of supplementary food, educational status, and participation of family members in infant care (
Tables 1 and
2). Although household income, education level, and social status have been positively associated with breastfeeding initiation and duration in developed countries, some studies have found no difference in breastfeeding self-efficacy scores (BSES) across different household incomes, education levels, or family types (
5,
7,
8,
11).
Despite the expectation that physical environmental challenges—such as the change in accommodation for 3 out of 4 earthquake survivor mother-infant dyads, property loss in one-third of them, and nearly half accommodating at home—would affect the availability of suitable areas for breastfeeding, the same breastfeeding rates were found in both groups. This suggests that under tough environmental conditions, mothers prioritize their infants’ needs and adopt a protective mindset, thereby strengthening the mother-infant relationship. Consequently, higher self-efficacy scores may have been observed in the study group. A study conducted in Turkey after the earthquake indicated that breastfeeding helped reduce post-traumatic stress disorder during the earthquake period, suggesting that breastfeeding provides protective benefits for both the mother and infant, which supports this perspective (
18).
A study comparing cross-sectional feeding before and after the Nepal earthquake two years apart showed that breastfeeding rates in infants younger than six months were higher after the earthquake, although this was not statistically significant (
19). Our study employs a different design than that in the literature, comparing infants exposed to the earthquake with those not exposed during the same period, and it found similar breast milk intake rates at the 6th month.
The literature indicates that during the earthquake period, various groups donated formula despite all restrictions, while mothers expressed concerns about providing adequate breast milk (
20). Furthermore, it is noted that during natural disasters, the media can influence mothers' preferences for breast milk and formula, potentially affecting breast milk intake (
21). Although our study revealed that the study group faced more financial difficulties in infant feeding, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding formula use before 6 months of age. This finding suggests that there is no decrease in exclusive breastfeeding among earthquake-affected mother-infant dyads compared to other infants, making it unreasonable to provide artificial feeding with formula. A comprehensive review of the literature has shown that resilience is more common than pathological outcomes in natural disasters (
22). Therefore, due to this increased resilience, it is believed that BSES were higher in the study group, thereby preventing pathological outcomes.
The mean score in the original study of the breastfeeding self-efficacy short-form scale, an important tool for assessing breastfeeding efficacy, was 55 (
13). In a study involving postpartum women, the BSES was also found to be 55 (
23). Another study compared the BSES of mothers with healthy and sick babies, reporting scores of 55 for mothers with healthy babies and 52 for those with sick babies (10). In our study, the BSES was 54 (31 - 70), median (min-max) in the control group, consistent with the literature, and 64 (33 - 70), median (min-max) in the study group, which is higher than reported in the literature (P = 0.02). The elevated score in the study group suggests that this may be due to increased resilience in both mothers and infants. The finding of a higher breastfeeding self-efficacy score in the study group supports the hypothesis that in challenging situations, mothers' self-efficacy increases due to their instinct to protect their babies, resulting in a longer breastfeeding duration than expected.
The literature indicates that natural disasters, such as pandemics, earthquakes, and hurricanes, increase the incidence of postnatal depression (
24). An Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Score above 12 is indicative of postnatal depression (
14). In this study, the median values in both groups were below this threshold. Although the score was higher in the study group than in the control group [7 (0 - 26) vs. 10 (0 - 21)], the median (min-max) difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.58). Therefore, no relationship between the earthquake and postnatal depression could be established. The questions on the EPDS assess the mother's condition over the past week, and it is recommended in the literature that screening be performed in the second postnatal month. Since this study investigated data at the 6th month and the mothers had experienced the initial months—when postnatal depression is more prevalent—there may not have been a significant difference between the groups in EPDS scores. Different results might have emerged if these mothers had been contacted at 2 months old for the EPDS assessment. However, this was not feasible due to environmental conditions. We recommend that future studies take this into account.
In general, although this study compared two groups of earthquake survivors and non-earthquake survivors with available resources, it found that the earthquake did not affect infants' breast milk intake at 6 months. The fact that the control group was drawn from a different population meant that confounding factors could not be analyzed in this study. Therefore, the results will guide future research in this area.
5.1. Conclusions
Major disasters, such as earthquakes, do not significantly alter breast milk intake rates in infants at six months compared to the general population. If breastfeeding is maintained despite deteriorating environmental conditions, mothers' breastfeeding self-confidence increases, protecting both the mother and baby from negative factors. The most important need for the baby in the first six months is its mother, and artificial feeding should not be encouraged unless medically necessary.