Dataset Information

Prevalence and Trends in Donor Milk Use in the Well-Baby Nursery: A Survey of Northeast United States Birth Hospitals.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Pasteurized donor human milk ("donor milk") is an alternative to formula for supplementation of breastfed infants. We conducted a survey to determine (1) prevalence, trends, and hospital-level correlates of donor milk use for healthy newborns in the northeast United States and (2) clinician knowledge and opinions regarding this practice. METHODS:We conducted parallel surveys of clinicians (88% nurse and/or lactation consultant) at (1) all birth hospitals in Massachusetts (MA) and (2) all birth hospitals served by a northeast United States milk bank. We asked about hospital use of donor milk for newborns ?35 weeks' gestation and receiving Level I care in well nursery, hospital-related factors we hypothesized would be associated with this practice, and clinician knowledge and opinions about donor milk use. RESULTS:35/46 (76%) of MA birth hospitals and 51/69 (74%) of hospitals served by the milk bank responded; 71 unique hospitals were included. Twenty-nine percent of MA birth hospitals and 43% of hospitals served by the milk bank reported using donor milk for healthy newborns. Hospitals that used donor milk for healthy newborns had higher exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge than hospitals that did not (77% versus 56%, p?=?0.02). Eighty-three percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that using donor milk is an effective way to increase the hospital's exclusive breastfeeding rate. CONCLUSIONS:Many northeast United States birth hospitals currently use donor milk for healthy newborns. This practice is associated with higher exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge. Relationships with breastfeeding after discharge and related outcomes are unknown.

SUBMITTER: Belfort MB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5770118 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan/Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prevalence and Trends in Donor Milk Use in the Well-Baby Nursery: A Survey of Northeast United States Birth Hospitals.

Belfort Mandy Brown MB Drouin Kaitlin K Riley Jennifer F JF Gregory Katherine E KE Philipp Barbara L BL Parker Margaret G MG Sen Sarbattama S

Breastfeeding medicine : the official journal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine 20171024 1

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Pasteurized donor human milk ("donor milk") is an alternative to formula for supplementation of breastfed infants. We conducted a survey to determine (1) prevalence, trends, and hospital-level correlates of donor milk use for healthy newborns in the northeast United States and (2) clinician knowledge and opinions regarding this practice.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted parallel surveys of clinicians (88% nurse and/or lactation consultant) at (1) all birth hospitals ...[more]

PMID: 29064280

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOne of the key strategies for reducing maternal and perinatal morbidities and mortalities is the provision of skilled intrapartum care. While cesarean section is an important emergency obstetric intervention for saving the lives of mothers and newborns, a study comparing the prevalence of cesarean delivery is not sufficiently available in Ethiopia. This study aimed at assessing the prevalence and associated factors of cesarean delivery among women who gave birth at hospitals in Dessie town, Northeast Ethiopia.MethodsA facility based cross-sectional study was conducted between July and October 2013. A total of 520 women who gave birth in four hospitals (public = 1, private = 3) were interviewed. Face-to-face interviews using a pre-tested and structured questionnaire were conducted for primary data collection. Additionally, patients' charts were reviewed to collect mothers' clinical data. Bivariate and multiple logistic regressions analyses were conducted. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were computed and a P-value of less than 0.05 was taken to declare the level of significance.ResultsA total of 512 mothers were included in the final analysis (response rate = 98.4%), the prevalence of cesarean delivery was found to be 47.6% (95% CI: 44.3, 51.1), While 46 (18.2%) of the procedure conducted in public and 198 (76.1%) were in private hospitals. Partograph monitoring [AOR = 3.84 95%CI: 2.24, 6.59], oxytocin administration [AOR = 4. 80 95%CI: 2.87-8.02], previous cesarean delivery [AOR = 2. 86 95%CI: 1.64-5.01] and place of delivery being a private hospital [AOR = 6. 79 95%CI: 4.18-11.01)] were associated with cesarean delivery.ConclusionThe prevalence of cesarean delivery was found to be high, and was significantly higher in private hospitals than a public facility. There is a need to conduct cesarean delivery audits to appropriately utilize scarce resources. Further an in-depth exploration of the experiences of women with cesarean delivery is necessary.

Project description:BackgroundWhen sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative forms of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of greater amounts of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or LBW infants.ObjectivesTo determine the effect of feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants.Search methodsWe used the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (until 8 June 2017), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews.Selection criteriaRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or LBW infants.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) methods.Main resultsEleven trials, in which 1809 infants participated in total, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and seven compared nutrient-enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the four most recent trials used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. The trials contain various weaknesses in methodological quality, specifically concerns about allocation concealment in four trials and lack of blinding in most of the trials.Formula-fed infants had higher in-hospital rates of weight gain (mean difference (MD) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 3.08 g/kg/day), linear growth (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.65 mm/week) and head growth (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23 mm/week). We did not find evidence of an effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment. Formula feeding increased the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.85; risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.06).The GRADE quality of evidence was moderate for rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth (downgraded for high levels of heterogeneity) and was moderate for neurodevelopmental disability, all-cause mortality, and necrotising enterocolitis (downgraded for imprecision).Authors' conclusionsIn preterm and LBW infants, feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk, either as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet, results in higher rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth and a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. The trial data do not show an effect on all-cause mortality, or on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.

Project description:BackgroundWhen sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative forms of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or LBW infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of greater amounts of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or LBW infants.ObjectivesTo determine the effect of feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants.Search methodsWe used the Cochrane Neonatal search strategy, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (3 May 2019), as well as conference proceedings, previous reviews, and clinical trials.Selection criteriaRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing feeding with formula versus donor breast milk in preterm or LBW infants.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. We assessed the certainty of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using GRADE methods.Main resultsTwelve trials with a total of 1879 infants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared standard term formula versus donor breast milk and eight compared nutrient-enriched preterm formula versus donor breast milk. Only the five most recent trials used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. The trials contain various weaknesses in methodological quality, specifically concerns about allocation concealment in four trials and lack of blinding in most of the trials. Most of the included trials were funded by companies that made the study formula.Formula-fed infants had higher in-hospital rates of weight gain (mean difference (MD) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 3.08 g/kg/day), linear growth (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.65 mm/week) and head growth (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23 mm/week). These meta-analyses contained high levels of heterogeneity. We did not find evidence of an effect on long-term growth or neurodevelopment. Formula feeding increased the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.85; risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 33, 95% CI 20 to 100; 9 studies, 1675 infants).The GRADE certainty of evidence was moderate for rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth (downgraded for high levels of heterogeneity) and was moderate for neurodevelopmental disability, all-cause mortality, and necrotising enterocolitis (downgraded for imprecision).Authors' conclusionsIn preterm and LBW infants, moderate-certainty evidence indicates that feeding with formula compared with donor breast milk, either as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet, results in higher rates of weight gain, linear growth, and head growth and a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. The trial data do not show an effect on all-cause mortality, or on long-term growth or neurodevelopment.

Project description:The prevalence of oocyte donation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) has increased in the United States, but little information is available regarding maternal or infant outcomes to improve counseling and clinical decision making.To quantify trends in donor oocyte cycles in the United States and to determine predictors of a good perinatal outcome among IVF cycles using fresh (noncryopreserved) embryos derived from donor oocytes.Analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National ART Surveillance System, to which fertility centers are mandated to report and which includes data on more than 95% of all IVF cycles performed in the United States. Data from 2000 to 2010 described trends. Data from 2010 determined predictors.Good perinatal outcome, defined as a singleton live-born infant delivered at 37 weeks or later and weighing 2500 g or more.From 2000 to 2010, data from 443 clinics (93% of all US fertility centers) were included. The annual number of donor oocyte cycles significantly increased, from 10,801 to 18,306. Among all donor oocyte cycles, an increasing trend was observed from 2000 to 2010 in the proportion of cycles using frozen (vs fresh) embryos (26.7% [95% CI, 25.8%-27.5%] to 40.3% [95% CI, 39.6%-41.1%]) and elective single-embryo transfers (vs transfer of multiple embryos) (0.8% [95% CI, 0.7%-1.0%] to 14.5% [95% CI, 14.0%-15.1%]). Good perinatal outcomes increased from 18.5% (95% CI, 17.7%-19.3%) to 24.4% (95% CI, 23.8%-25.1%) (P?<?.001 for all listed trends). Mean donor and recipient ages remained stable at 28 (SD, 2.8) years and 41 (SD, 5.3) years, respectively. In 2010, 396 clinics contributed data. For donor oocyte cycles using fresh embryos (n?=?9865), 27.5% (95% CI, 26.6%-28.4%) resulted in good perinatal outcome. Transfer of an embryo at day 5 (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.17 [95% CI, 1.04-1.32]) and elective single-embryo transfers (adjusted OR, 2.32 [95% CI, 1.92-2.80]) were positively associated with good perinatal outcome; tubal (adjusted OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.60-0.86]) or uterine (adjusted OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.58-0.94]) factor infertility and non-Hispanic black recipient race/ethnicity (adjusted OR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.35-0.67]) were associated with decreased odds of good outcome. Recipient age was not associated with likelihood of good perinatal outcome.In the United States from 2000 to 2010, there was an increase in number of donor oocyte cycles, accompanied by an increase in good outcomes. Further studies are needed to understand the mechanisms underlying the factors associated with less successful outcomes.

Dataset Information

Prevalence and Trends in Donor Milk Use in the Well-Baby Nursery: A Survey of Northeast United States Birth Hospitals.

Publications

Prevalence and Trends in Donor Milk Use in the Well-Baby Nursery: A Survey of Northeast United States Birth Hospitals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets