Breastfeeding is important for women and childrenâs health, but less than half of infants worldwide begin life with optimal breastfeeding. A growing literature shows consistently large economic costs of not breastfeeding, with global studies showing economic losses of around US300billionglobally.However,existingstudiesarehighlydiverseinapproaches,methods,datasourcesandcountryresults.Buildingonalandmark2012UNICEFUKreviewfocusedonhighâincomecountries,weconductedascopingreviewtomapandcharacterizetheexpandingliteratureandidentifyfutureresearchdirectionsinthisresearcharea.Weincludedstudies(n=36)indiversecountrysettingsandoutcomesforwomenandchildren.WeusedPubMed,WebofScience,EMBASE,MEDLINE,ProQuestandmanualsearchesofcostofnotbreastfeedingstudiespublishedbetween1996and2023.Articleswereexcludediftheyweremacroeconomicevaluations,didnotassignmonetaryvaluesoronlyevaluatedbreastfeedingorformulafeedingcostsandnotoutcomesorwerecostofprogramsstudies.Wefoundconsiderablediversityindisciplinaryapproachesanddifferencesinmethodologies.Thoughthereweredifferentcostmeasurementperspectives(societal,institutional/payerandindividual),allbuttwoexcludedthecostsofunpaidcare.Studiestypicallymeasuredcostsofmedicaltreatment,withmorerecentstudiesusingdynamicsimulationmodels.Thelargesteconomiccostswerederivedfromlifetimeestimatesofhumancapitallosses,namelycostofprematuredeathandlossofintelligencequotientpoints.Medicalanddeathcostsvariedwidelydependingonmethodofcalculation,buttotalcostsconsistentlyexceededUS100 billion annually for the USA, and around $US300 billion in global studies. Our findings suggest that greater interdisciplinary collaboration is needed particularly to better define infant feeding exposures, and advance comprehensive measurement of costs and outcomes across lifetimes, in order to prioritize breastfeeding as a public health strategy of economic importance.</p
On 24 September 2021, The Lancet medical journal highlighted an article on its cover with a single sentence in large text; âHistorically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected.â This statement, in which the word âwomenâ was replaced with the phrase âbodies with vaginas,â is part of a trend to remove sexed terms such as âwomenâ and âmothersâ from discussions of female reproduction. The good and important intention behind these changes is sensitivity to, and acknowledgment of, the needs of people who are biologically female and yet do not consider themselves to be women because of their gender identity (1). However, these changes are often not deliberated regarding their impact on accuracy or potential for other unintended consequences. In this paper we present some background to this issue, describe various observed impacts, consider a number of potentially deleterious consequences, and suggest a way forward
A central goal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine is the development of clinical protocols for managing common medical problems that may impact breastfeeding success. These protocols serve only as guidelines for the care of breastfeeding mothers and infants and do not delineate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as standards of medical care. Variations in treatment may be appropriate according to the needs of an individual patient
To estimate risk of NEC for ELBW infants as a function of preterm formula and maternal milk (MM) intake and calculate the impact of suboptimal feeding on NEC incidence and costs