Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies

BACKGROUND: There is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant's diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation. OBJECTIVES: To describe forms of breastfeeding support which have been evaluated in controlled studies, the timing of the interventions and the settings in which they have been used.To examine the effectiveness of different modes of offering similar supportive interventions (for example, whether the support offered was proactive or reactive, face-to-face or over the telephone), and whether interventions containing both antenatal and postnatal elements were more effective than those taking place in the postnatal period alone.To examine the effectiveness of different care providers and (where information was available) training.To explore the interaction between background breastfeeding rates and effectiveness of support. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (29 February 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 100 trials involving more than 83,246 mother-infant pairs of which 73 studies contribute data (58 individually-randomised trials and 15 cluster-randomised trials). We considered that the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Of the 31 new studies included in this update, 21 provided data for one or more of the primary outcomes. The total number of mother-infant pairs in the 73 studies that contributed data to this review is 74,656 (this total was 56,451 in the previous version of this review). The 73 studies were conducted in 29 countries. Results of the analyses continue to confirm that all forms of extra support analyzed together showed a decrease in cessation of 'any breastfeeding', which includes partial and exclusive breastfeeding (average risk ratio (RR) for stopping any breastfeeding before six months 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 51 studies) and for stopping breastfeeding before four to six weeks (average RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 33 studies). All forms of extra support together also showed a decrease in cessation of exclusive breastfeeding at six months (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence, 46 studies) and at four to six weeks (average RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89; moderate quality, 32 studies). We downgraded evidence to moderate-quality due to very high heterogeneity.We investigated substantial heterogeneity for all four outcomes with subgroup analyses for the following covariates: who delivered care, type of support, timing of support, background breastfeeding rate and number of postnatal contacts. Covariates were not able to explain heterogeneity in general. Though the interaction tests were significant for some analyses, we advise caution in the interpretation of results for subgroups due to the heterogeneity. Extra support by both lay and professionals had a positive impact on breastfeeding outcomes. Several factors may have also improved results for women practising exclusive breastfeeding, such as interventions delivered with a face-to-face component, high background initiation rates of breastfeeding, lay support, and a specific schedule of four to eight contacts. However, because within-group heterogeneity remained high for all of these analyses, we advise caution when making specific conclusions based on subgroup results. We noted no evidence for subgroup differences for the any breastfeeding outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When breastfeeding support is offered to women, the duration and exclusivity of breastfeeding is increased. Characteristics of effective support include: that it is offered as standard by trained personnel during antenatal or postnatal care, that it includes ongoing scheduled visits so that women can predict when support will be available, and that it is tailored to the setting and the needs of the population group. Support is likely to be more effective in settings with high initiation rates. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Strategies that rely mainly on face-to-face support are more likely to succeed with women practising exclusive breastfeeding

The safety of at home powdered infant formula preparation: a community science project

Formula fed infants experience gastrointestinal infections at higher rates than breastfed infants, due in part to bacteria in powdered infant formula (PIF) and bacterial contamination of infant feeding equipment. The United Kingdom National Health Service (UK NHS) has adopted the World Health Organization recommendation that water used to reconstitute PIF is ≥70°C to eliminate bacteria. We used community science methods to co‐design an at home experiment and online questionnaire (‘research diary’) to explore the safety of PIF preparation compared to UK NHS guidelines. 200 UK‐based parents of infants aged ≤12 months were recruited; 151 provided data on PIF preparation, and 143 were included in the analysis of water temperatures used to reconstitute PIF. Only 14.9% (n = 11) of 74 PIF preparation machines produced a water temperature of ≥70°C compared with 78.3% (n = 54) of 69 kettle users (p < 0.001). The mean temperature of water dispensed by PIF preparation machines was 9°C lower than kettles (Machine M = 65.78°C, Kettle M = 75.29°C). Many parents did not always fully follow NHS safer PIF preparation guidance, and parents did not appear to understand the potential risks of PIF bacterial contamination. Parents should be advised that the water dispensed by PIF preparation machines may be below 70°C, and could result in bacteria remaining in infant formula, potentially leading to gastrointestinal infections. PIF labelling should advise that water used to prepare PIF should be ≥70°C and highight the risks of not using sufficiently hot water, per WHO Europe advice. There is an urgent need for stronger consumer protections regarding PIF preparation devices

Frenotomy with breastfeeding support versus breastfeeding support alone for infants with tongue-tie and breastfeeding difficulties: the FROSTTIE RCT

BackgroundTongue-tie can be diagnosed in 3–11% of babies, with some studies reporting almost universal breastfeeding difficulties, and others reporting very few feeding difficulties that relate to the tongue-tie itself, instead noting that incorrect positioning and attachment are the primary reasons behind the observed breastfeeding difficulties and not the tongue-tie itself. The only existing trials of frenotomy are small and underpowered and/or include only very short-term or subjective outcomes.ObjectiveTo investigate whether frenotomy is clinically and cost-effective to promote continuation of breastfeeding at 3 months in infants with breastfeeding difficulties diagnosed with tongue-tie.DesignA multicentre, unblinded, randomised, parallel group controlled trial.SettingTwelve infant feeding services in the UK.ParticipantsInfants aged up to 10 weeks referred to an infant feeding service (by a parent, midwife or other breastfeeding support service) with breastfeeding difficulties and judged to have tongue-tie.InterventionsInfants were randomly allocated to frenotomy with standard breastfeeding support or standard breastfeeding support without frenotomy.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was any breastmilk feeding at 3 months according to maternal self-report. Secondary outcomes included mother’s pain, exclusive breastmilk feeding, exclusive direct breastfeeding, frenotomy, adverse events, maternal anxiety and depression, maternal and infant NHS health-care resource use, cost-effectiveness, and any breastmilk feeding at 6 months of age.ResultsBetween March 2019 and November 2020, 169 infants were randomised, 80 to the frenotomy with breastfeeding support arm and 89 to the breastfeeding support arm from a planned sample size of 870 infants. The trial was stopped in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic due to withdrawal of breastfeeding support services, slow recruitment and crossover between arms. In the frenotomy with breastfeeding support arm 74/80 infants (93%) received their allocated intervention, compared to 23/89 (26%) in the breastfeeding support arm. Primary outcome data were available for 163/169 infants (96%). There was no evidence of a difference between the arms in the rate of breastmilk feeding at 3 months, which was high in both groups (67/76, 88% vs. 75/87, 86%; adjusted risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.16). Adverse events were reported for three infants after surgery [bleeding (n = 1), salivary duct damage (n = 1), accidental cut to the tongue and salivary duct damage (n = 1)]. Cost-effectiveness could not be determined with the information available.LimitationsThe statistical power of the analysis was extremely limited due to not achieving the target sample size and the high proportion of infants in the breastfeeding support arm who underwent frenotomy.ConclusionsThis trial does not provide sufficient information to assess whether frenotomy in addition to breastfeeding support improves breastfeeding rates in infants diagnosed with tongue-tie.Future workThere is a clear lack of equipoise in the UK concerning the use of frenotomy, however, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the procedure still need to be established. Other study designs will need to be considered to address this objective.Trial registrationThis trial is registered as ISRCTN 10268851

Breastfeeding rates in England during the Covid-19 pandemic and the previous decade: Analysis of national surveys and routine data.

BackgroundFew studies have compared breastfeeding rates before and during the pandemic using comparable data across time. We used data from two national maternity surveys (NMS) to compare breastfeeding rates in England before and during the pandemic.MethodsAnalysis was conducted using the NMS from 2018 (pre-pandemic; n = 4,509) and 2020 (during the pandemic; n = 4,611). The prevalence of breastfeeding initiation, and 'any' breastfeeding and exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) at 6 weeks and 6 months were compared between these surveys. Data were interpreted in the context of underlying trends in these prevalences from previous NMS (from 2010 and 2014), and annual routine data for England (from 2009-10 to 2020-21). Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRR) for the effect of birth during the pandemic (2020 versus 2018) on breastfeeding, with adjustment for sociodemographic and birth-related factors.ResultsBreastfeeding initiation and any breastfeeding at 6 weeks remained relatively constant in the NMS and the routine data. Birth during the pandemic was associated with a 3 percentage point decrease in EBF at 6 weeks in the NMS (aRR 0.92, 95%CI: 0.87, 0.98 for pandemic versus pre-pandemic), but a smaller decrease in the routine data. Birth during the pandemic was associated with a 3 percentage point increase in any breastfeeding at 6 months in the NMS (aRR 1.05, 95%CI: 1.00, 1.10). Breastfeeding varied across different groups of women in the NMS (i.e. marked inequalities), but the small changes observed between the pandemic and pre-pandemic NMS were broadly similar across the sociodemographic and birth-related factors examined (i.e. no change in inequalities).ConclusionBreastfeeding initiation and any breastfeeding at 6 weeks in England were unaffected by the pandemic, and the persistent inequalities in breastfeeding did not widen. Services should aim to reduce these inequalities in breastfeeding which have been documented since the 1970s

Feeling good about how we feed our babies

Feeding babies can often be a joyful and satisfying experience. But things don’t always feel so good. Many women suffer from shame, guilt and embarrassment surrounding decisions about how they feed their babies, whether they are breastfeeding directly or feeding expressed breastmilk or infant formula in a bottle or tube. Many women feel unsupported. Sometimes we feel like we have to justify our decisions to others. This can have serious effects on the wellbeing of vulnerable mothers and their babies. The Feeling Good About Feeding Babies website (www.FeelingsAboutFeedings.co.uk) is an ESRC Impact Acceleration Account Funded collaboration between researchers at the University of Southampton and University of Cardiff and parent support organisations, NCT and the Breastfeeding Network. It sets out to help parents and family members, friends, health professionals and others who provide support with feeding to have better conversations about how we feed our babies. It combines stories from parents about their feelings about how they fed their babies and research from Professor Fiona Woollard (Philosophy, Southampton) and Dr Heather Trickey (DECIPHer, Cardiff) identifying two common unhelpful ways of thinking about feeding babies – and how these unhelpful ways of thinking can leave parents feeling bad and make it hard to talk about how we feed our babies. The website gives ideas to help us think about our feelings about feeding babies and tries to start supportive conversations about why different parents make different decisions. It aims to help all parents feel good about how they feed their babies. The website was produced through extensive consultation and feedback from parents and those involved in supporting parents in feeding. The production of the website drew on expertise on online interventions in sensitive health issues from Dr Laura Dennison (Psychology, Southampton) and Dr Marta Glowacka (Psychology, Southampton) and the extensive experience in supporting parents from Heather Trickey (NCT) and Phyll Buchanan (BFN)

Feeling good about how we feed our babies

Feeding babies can often be a joyful and satisfying experience. But things don’t always feel so good. Many women suffer from shame, guilt and embarrassment surrounding decisions about how they feed their babies, whether they are breastfeeding directly or feeding expressed breastmilk or infant formula in a bottle or tube. Many women feel unsupported. Sometimes we feel like we have to justify our decisions to others. This can have serious effects on the wellbeing of vulnerable mothers and their babies. The Feeling Good About Feeding Babies website (www.FeelingsAboutFeedings.co.uk) is an ESRC Impact Acceleration Account Funded collaboration between researchers at the University of Southampton and University of Cardiff and parent support organisations, NCT and the Breastfeeding Network. It sets out to help parents and family members, friends, health professionals and others who provide support with feeding to have better conversations about how we feed our babies. It combines stories from parents about their feelings about how they fed their babies and research from Professor Fiona Woollard (Philosophy, Southampton) and Dr Heather Trickey (DECIPHer, Cardiff) identifying two common unhelpful ways of thinking about feeding babies – and how these unhelpful ways of thinking can leave parents feeling bad and make it hard to talk about how we feed our babies. The website gives ideas to help us think about our feelings about feeding babies and tries to start supportive conversations about why different parents make different decisions. It aims to help all parents feel good about how they feed their babies. The website was produced through extensive consultation and feedback from parents and those involved in supporting parents in feeding. The production of the website drew on expertise on online interventions in sensitive health issues from Dr Laura Dennison (Psychology, Southampton) and Dr Marta Glowacka (Psychology, Southampton) and the extensive experience in supporting parents from Heather Trickey (NCT) and Phyll Buchanan (BFN)

Characteristics of the women included in the two surveys for the analysis of breastfeeding initiation and EBF.

Characteristics of the women included in the two surveys for the analysis of breastfeeding initiation and EBF.</p

Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education:Systematic review and meta‐analysis

The Covid‐19 pandemic has led to a substantial increase in remotely provided maternity care services, including breastfeeding support. It is, therefore, important to understand whether breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. To determine if breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. A systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted. Twenty‐nine studies were included in the review and 26 contributed data to the meta‐analysis. Remotely provided breastfeeding support significantly reduced the risk of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months by 25% (risk ratio [RR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63, 0.90). There was no significant difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4–8 weeks (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.74, 1.64), 3 months (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.11), or 6 months (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.81, 1.03) or the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4–8 weeks (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.07) or 6 months (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.0). There was substantial heterogeneity of interventions in terms of mode of delivery, intensity, and providers. This demonstrates that remote interventions can be effective for improving exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months but the certainty of the evidence is low. Improvements in exclusive breastfeeding at 4–8 weeks and 6 months were only found when studies at high risk of bias were excluded. They are also less likely to be effective for improving any breastfeeding. Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education could be provided when it is not possible to provide face‐to‐face care