(1) Introduction: Current evidence on managing infants under six months with growth failure or other nutrition-related risk is sparse and low quality. This review aims to inform research priorities to fill this evidence gap, focusing on breastfeeding practices. (2) Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane Library for studies on feeding interventions that aim to restore or improve the volume or quality of breastmilk and breastfeeding when breastfeeding practices are sub-optimal or prematurely stopped. We included studies from both low- and middle-income countries and high-income countries. (3) Results: Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were from high-income countries (n = 35, 74.5%) and included infants who were at risk of growth failure at birth (preterm infants/small for gestational age) and newborns with early growth faltering. Interventions included formula fortification or supplementation (n = 31, 66%), enteral feeds (n = 8, 17%), cup feeding (n = 2, 4.2%), and other (n = 6, 12.8%). Outcomes included anthropometric change (n = 40, 85.1%), reported feeding practices (n = 16, 34%), morbidity (n = 11, 23.4%), and mortality (n = 5, 10.6%). Of 31 studies that assessed formula fortification or supplementation, 30 reported anthropometric changes (n = 17 no effect, n = 9 positive, n = 4 mixed), seven morbidity (n = 3 no effect, n = 2 positive, n = 2 negative), five feeding (n = 2 positive, n = 2 no effect, n = 1 negative), and four mortality (n = 3 no effect, n = 1 negative). Of eight studies that assessed enteral feed interventions, seven reported anthropometric changes (n = 4 positive, n = 3 no effect), five feeding practices (n = 2 positive, n = 2 no effect, n = 1 negative), four morbidity (n = 4 no effect), and one reported mortality (n = 1 no effect). Overall, interventions with positive effects on feeding practices were cup feeding compared to bottle-feeding among preterm; nasogastric tube feed compared to bottle-feeding among low birth weight preterm; and early progressive feeding compared to delayed feeding among extremely low birth weight preterm. Bovine/cow milk feeding and high volume feeding interventions had an unfavourable effect, while electric breast pump and Galactagogue had a mixed effect. Regarding anthropometric outcomes, overall, macronutrient fortified formula, cream supplementation, and fortified human milk formula had a positive effect (weight gain) on preterm infants. Interventions comparing human breastmilk/donor milk with formula had mixed effects. Overall, only human milk compared to formula intervention had a positive effect on morbidity among preterm infants, while none of the interventions had any positive effect on mortality. Bovine/cow milk supplementation had unfavourable effects on both morbidity and mortality. (4) Conclusion: Future research should prioritise low- and middle-income countries, include infants presenting with growth failure in the post-neonatal period and record effects on morbidity and mortality outcomes.

Small and nutritionally at-risk infants under six months, defined as those with wasting, underweight, or other forms of growth failure, are at high-risk of mortality and morbidity. The World Health Organisation 2013 guidelines on severe acute malnutrition highlight the need to effectively manage this vulnerable group, but programmatic challenges are widely reported. This review aims to inform future management strategies for small and nutritionally at-risk infants under six months in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by synthesising evidence on existing breastfeeding support packages for all infants under six months. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Global Health databases from inception to 18 July 2018. Intervention of interest were breastfeeding support packages. Studies reporting breastfeeding practices and/or caregivers’/healthcare staffs’ knowledge/skills/practices for infants under six months from LMICs were included. Study quality was assessed using NICE quality appraisal checklist for intervention studies. A narrative data synthesis using the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline was conducted and key features of successful programmes identified. Of 15,256 studies initially identified, 41 were eligible for inclusion. They were geographically diverse, representing 22 LMICs. Interventions were mainly targeted at mother–infant pairs and only 7% (n = 3) studies included at-risk infants. Studies were rated to be of good or adequate quality. Twenty studies focused on hospital-based interventions, another 20 on community-based and one study compared both. Among all interventions, breastfeeding counselling (n = 6) and education (n = 6) support packages showed the most positive effect on breastfeeding practices followed by breastfeeding training (n = 4), promotion (n = 4) and peer support (n = 3). Breastfeeding education support (n = 3) also improved caregivers’ knowledge/skills/practices. Identified breastfeeding support packages can serve as "primary prevention" interventions for all infants under six months in LMICs. For at-risk infants, these packages need to be adapted and formally tested in future studies. Future work should also examine impacts of breastfeeding support on anthropometry and morbidity outcomes. The review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018102795).

A poor understanding of malnutrition burden is a common reason for not prioritizing the care of small and nutritionally at-risk infants aged under-six months (infants u6m). We aimed to estimate the anthropometric deficit prevalence in infants u6m attending health centres, using the Composite Index of Anthropometric Failure (CIAF), and to assess the overlap of different individual indicators. We undertook a two-week survey of all infants u6m visiting 18 health centres in two zones of the Oromia region, Ethiopia. We measured weight, length, and MUAC (mid-upper arm circumference) and calculated weight-for-length (WLZ), length-for-age (LAZ), and weight-for-age z-scores (WAZ). Overall, 21.7% (95% CI: 19.2; 24.3) of infants u6m presented CIAF, and of these, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.93; 12.7) had multiple anthropometric deficits. Low MUAC overlapped with 47.5% (95% CI: 38.0; 57.3), 43.8% (95% CI: 34.9; 53.1), and 42.6% (95% CI: 36.3; 49.2) of the stunted, wasted, and CIAF prevalence, respectively. Underweight overlapped with 63.4% (95% CI: 53.6; 72.2), 52.7% (95% CI: 43.4; 61.7), and 59.6% (95% CI: 53.1; 65.9) of the stunted, wasted, and CIAF prevalence, respectively. Anthropometric deficits, single and multiple, are prevalent in infants attending health centres. WAZ overlaps more with other forms of anthropometric deficits than MUAC.

Introduction: Tackling malnutrition in infants aged under 6 months (u6m) is a major global priority yet evidence around this vulnerable group is weak. We aimed to support the rollout of new 2023 WHO guidelines by examining the burden of infant malnutrition and potential programme caseloads with new enrolment criteria.Methods: Secondary analysis of Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) datasets. We calculated the number of underweight (low weight-for-age), wasting (low weight-for-length), stunting (low length-for-age) and low birth weight (LBW) infants. We assessed data quality by recording extreme or missing values. We calculated the population-weighted prevalence of anthropometric deficit and extrapolated to all low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We regressed being underweight and wasti on infant, maternal and household characteristics using logistic regression.Results: We analysed 56 DHS surveys. There were more extreme (flagged) values for length-based measures (7.5% flagged for weight-for-length, 3.8% for length-for-age) than for weight-for-age (0.6% flagged). Overall, 17.4% of infants (95% CI: 16.9 to 18.0) were underweight, 15.5% (15.0–16.0) were wasted, 19.9% (19.3–20.5) were stunted and 15.0% (14.5–15.5) were LBW. This corresponds to an estimated burden in LMICs of 10.3 million underweight infants (4.1 million severely underweight), 9.2 million wasted (4.0 million severely wasted), 11.8 million stunted (5.4 million severely stunted) and 8.9 million LBW infants. Overlap of the indicators varied markedly in different regions/countries. Numerous factors were associated with both underweight and wasting; associations tended to be stronger and have greater biological plausibility with being underweight.Conclusion: Malnutrition in infants u6m is a major problem in LMICs. Local epidemiology should inform case identification in contextualised care services across health and nutrition. Data quality and stronger associations with health and social characteristics support the use of underweight as a key enrolment criterion. Since vulnerability may be due to or exacerbated by multiple factors, management must go beyond feeding support to address wider infant, maternal and mental health and social circumstances through integrated, multidisciplinary care systems.

Background: There is increasing global focus on malnutrition in infants aged under 6 months (u6m) but evidence on how best to identify and manage at-risk individuals is sparse. Our objectives were to: explore data quality of commonly used anthropometric indicators; describe prevalence and disease burden of infant u6m malnutrition; compare wasting and underweight as measures of malnutrition by determining the strength and consistency of associations with biologically plausible risk factors. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional secondary analysis of Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) datasets, focussing on infants u6m. We calculated underweight (low weight-for-age), wasting (low weight-for-length), stunting (low length-for-age), and concurrent wasting and stunting. We explored data quality by recording extreme (flagged, as per standard criteria) or missing values. We calculated the population-weighted prevalence of each type of malnutrition and extrapolated the burden to all low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We explored associations between infant, maternal and household risk factors with underweight and wasting using logistic regression models. Results: We analysed 54 DHS surveys. Data quality in terms of refusals and missingness was similar for both weight and length. There were more extreme (flagged) values for length-based measures (6.1% flagged for weight-for-length, 4.8% for length-for-age) than for weight-for-age (1.0% flagged). Overall, 20.1% of infants (95% CI: 19.5, 20.7) were underweight, 21.3% (95% CI: 20.7, 22.3) were wasted, 17.6% (95% CI: 17.0, 18.2) were stunted, and 2.0% (95% CI: 1.8, 2.2) were concurrently wasted and stunted. This corresponds to an estimated burden in LMICs of 23.8m underweight infants, 24.5m wasted infants, 21.5m stunted infants and 2.2m concurrently wasted and stunted. Logistic regression models showed that numerous risk factors were associated with wasting and underweight. Effect sizes of risk factors tended to be stronger and more consistently associated with underweight compared to wasting. Conclusion: Malnutrition in infants u6m is a major problem in LMICs. This is true whether assessed by underweight, wasting or stunting. Our data build on other evidence suggesting that underweight may be a better anthropometric case definition than wasting: data quality is better when length is not involved; biologically plausible risk factors are better reflected by an infant being underweight. Future research, ideally from intervention trials, should further explore how best to identify malnourished (small and nutritionally at-risk) infants u6m. For now, treatment programmes should note that many factors might underlie problems in this age group: services should thus consider how to address maternal health and wider social circumstances as well as caring for infants themselves.

Skilled staff are essential for successfully managing child malnutrition, especially when dealing with small, nutritionally at-risk infants aged under 6 months. Training and patient management tools provide healthcare workers with core knowledge, skills, and support. To inform more effective future approaches and support the rollout of new WHO wasting prevention/treatment guidelines, we aimed to map and understand globally available training and patient management tools. In a mixed-methods study, we searched the literature to identify different training packages and management tools and conducted semi-structured key informant interviews with staff working in a variety of internationally organizations and settings. Data were analyzed using a phenomenological approach. We found 14 different training packages targeting different settings, including inpatient, outpatient, and humanitarian contexts. Curricula varied, especially around breastfeeding and maternal assessment, mental health, and nutritional status. Key informants (n = 9) reported gaps regarding counseling skills, time for practice, and how to effectively provide mental health counseling. Training delivery was highly dependent on resources and setting. In conclusion, future training should consider setting-specific needs, opportunities, and limitations. Emphasis on breastfeeding-support skills, mental health support, and counseling skills is needed. Enhanced practical sessions, refresher trainings, and ongoing monitoring and support are vital to ensure sustained high-quality services.