Dataset Information

Funding received from breastmilk substitute manufacturers and policy positions of national maternity care provider associations: an online cross-sectional review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Maternity care providers play an essential role in supporting women to breast feed. It is critical that their professional associations limit influence from breastmilk substitute (BMS) manufacturers. Aims of this study were (i) to examine whether maternity care provider associations had policy or positions statements addressing BMS marketing and (ii) to explore the type of funding received by these associations.

Design

An online cross-sectional review.

Setting

National or regional maternity provider professional associations in Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada and the UK.

Participants

Twenty-eight maternity care provider (obstetricians, midwives, nurses and others involved in perinatal care) professional association websites.

Interventions

Websites were examined from November 2019 to October 2020.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Evidence of BMS industry funding and policy or position statements addressing acceptance of funding from industries such as BMS.

Results

Policies addressing the BMS industry were found for 14 associations (50%). UK-based associations (5/5, 100%) and perinatal associations (4/6, 67%) were most likely to have a policy. Six associations (6/28, 21%) received some form of BMS financial support. The highest rates of BMS support were seen in the form of event advertising (5/28, 18%); closely followed by event sponsorship (4/28, 14%). At a provider level, obstetric associations had the highest rates of BMS support (2/4, 50%). At a country level, US-based associations were most likely to receive BMS support (3/7, 43%).

Conclusions

BMS industry financial support was received by one-fifth of maternity care provider associations. Half of these associations had policies addressing BMS marketing. BMS industry support can create conflicts of interest that can threaten efforts to support, protect and promote breast feeding. Healthcare provider associations should avoid BMS funding and at a minimum have policy or position statements addressing BMS marketing.

SUBMITTER: Qassin S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8693090 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPerson-centered maternity care (PCMC) has become a priority in the global health discourse on quality of care due to the high prevalence of disrespectful and lack of responsive care during facility-based childbirth. Although PCMC is generally sub-optimal, there are significant disparities. On average, women of low socioeconomic status (SES) tend to receive poorer PCMC than women of higher SES. Yet few studies have explored factors underlying these inequities. In this study, we examined provider implicit and explicit biases that could lead to inequitable PCMC based on SES.MethodsData are from a cross-sectional survey with 150 providers recruited from 19 health facilities in the Upper East region of Ghana from October 2020 to January 2021. Explicit SES bias was assessed using situationally-specific vignettes (low SES and high SES characteristics) on providers' perceptions of women's expectations, attitudes, and behaviors. Implicit SES bias was assessed using an Implicit Association Test (IAT) that measures associations between women's SES characteristics and providers' perceptions of women as 'difficult' or 'good'. Analysis included descriptive statistics, mixed-model ANOVA, and bivariate and multivariate linear regression.ResultsThe average explicit bias score was 18.1 out of 28 (SD = 3.60) for the low SES woman vignette and 16.9 out of 28 (SD = 3.15) for the high SES woman vignette (p < 0.001), suggesting stronger negative explicit bias towards the lower SES woman. These biases manifested in higher agreement to statements such as the low SES woman in the vignette is not likely to expect providers to introduce themselves and is not likely to understand explanations. The average IAT score was 0.71 (SD = 0.43), indicating a significant bias in associating positive characteristics with high SES women and negative characteristics with low SES women. Providers with higher education had significantly lower explicit bias scores on the low SES vignette than those with less education. Providers in private facilities had higher IAT scores than those in government hospitals.ConclusionsThe findings provide evidence of both implicit and explicit SES bias among maternity providers. These biases need to be addressed in interventions to achieve equity in PCMC and to improve PCMC for all women.

Project description:At least 2.3 million people in the U.S. have an opioid use disorder, less than 40% of whom receive evidence-based treatment. Buprenorphine used as part of medication-assisted treatment has high potential to address this gap because of its approval for use in non-specialty outpatient settings, effectiveness at promoting abstinence, and cost effectiveness. However, less than 4% of licensed physicians are approved to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, and approximately 47% of counties lack a buprenorphine-waivered physician. Existing policies contribute to workforce barriers to buprenorphine provision and access. Providers are reticent to prescribe buprenorphine because of workforce barriers, such as (1) insufficient training and education on opioid use disorder treatment, (2) lack of institutional and clinician peer support, (3) poor care coordination, (4) provider stigma, (5) inadequate reimbursement from private and public insurers, and (6) regulatory hurdles to obtain the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine in non-addiction specialty treatment settings. Policy pathways to addressing these provider workforce barriers going forward include providing free and easy-to-access education for providers about opioid use disorders and medication-assisted treatment, eliminating buprenorphine waiver requirements for those licensed to prescribe controlled substances, enforcing insurance parity requirements, requiring coverage of evidence-based medication-assisted treatment as essential health benefits, and providing financial incentives for care coordination across healthcare professional types-including behavioral health counselors and other non-physicians in specialty and non-specialty settings. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION:This article is part of a supplement entitled The Behavioral Health Workforce: Planning, Practice, and Preparation, which is sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Project description:BackgroundDisrespectful and abusive maternity care is a complex phenomenon. In Namibia, HIV and high maternal mortality ratios make it vital to understand factors affecting maternity care quality. We report on two studies commissioned by Namibia's Ministry of Health and Social Services. A health worker study examined cultural and structural factors that influence maternity care workers' attitudes and practices, and a maternal and neonatal mortality study explored community perceptions about maternity care.MethodsThe health worker study involved medical officers, matrons, and registered or enrolled nurses working in Namibia's 35 district and referral hospitals. The study included a survey (N =?281) and 19 focus group discussions. The community study conducted 12 focus groups in five southern regions with recently delivered mothers and relatives.ResultsMost participants in the health worker study were experienced maternity care nurses. One-third (31%) of survey respondents reported witnessing or knowing of client mistreatment at their hospital, about half (49%) agreed that "sometimes you have to yell at a woman in labor," and a third (30%) agreed that pinching or slapping a laboring woman can make her push harder. Nurses were much more likely to agree with these statements than medical officers. Health workers' commitment to babies' welfare and stressful workloads were the two primary reasons cited to justify "harsh" behaviors. Respondents who were dissatisfied with their workload were twice as likely to approve of pinching or slapping. Half of the nurses surveyed (versus 14% of medical officers) reported providing care above or beneath their scope of work. The community focus group study identified 14 negative practices affecting clients' maternity care experiences, including both systemic and health-worker-related practices.ConclusionsNamibia's public sector hospital maternity units confront health workers and clients with structural and cultural impediments to quality care. Negative interactions between health workers and laboring women were reported as common, despite high health worker commitment to babies' welfare. Key recommendations include multicomponent interventions that address heavy workloads and other structural factors, educate communities and the media about maternity care and health workers' roles, incorporate client-centered care into preservice education, and ensure ongoing health worker mentoring and supervision.

Project description:BackgroundAs in many health care systems, some Canadian jurisdictions have begun shifting away from global hospital budgets. Payment for episodes of care has begun to be implemented. Starting in 2012, the Province of Ontario implemented hospital funding reforms comprising three elements: Global Budgets; Health Based Allocation Method (HBAM); and Quality-Based Procedures (QBP). This evaluation focuses on implementation of QBPs, a procedure/diagnosis-specific funding approach involving a pre-set price per episode of care coupled with best practice clinical pathways. We examined whether or not there was consensus in understanding of the program theory underpinning QBPs and how this may have influenced full and effective implementation of this innovative funding model.MethodsWe undertook a formative evaluation of QBP implementation. We used an embedded case study method and in-depth, one-on-one, semi-structured, telephone interviews with key informants at three levels of the health care system: Designers (those who designed the QBP policy); Adoption Supporters (organizations and individuals supporting adoption of QBPs); and Hospital Implementers (those responsible for QBP implementation in hospitals). Thematic analysis involved an inductive approach, incorporating Framework analysis to generate descriptive and explanatory themes that emerged from the data.ResultsFive main findings emerged from our research: (1) Unbeknownst to most key informants, there was neither consistency nor clarity over time among QBP designers in their understanding of the original goal(s) for hospital funding reform; (2) Prior to implementation, the intended hospital funding mechanism transitioned from ABF to QBPs, but most key informants were either unaware of the transition or believe it was intentional; (3) Perception of the primary goal(s) of the policy reform continues to vary within and across all levels of key informants; (4) Four years into implementation, the QBP funding mechanism remains misunderstood; and (5) Ongoing differences in understanding of QBP goals and funding mechanism have created challenges with implementation and difficulties in measuring success.ConclusionsPolicy drift and policy layering affected both the goal and the mechanism of action of hospital funding reform. Lack of early specification in both policy goals and hospital funding mechanism exposed the reform to reactive changes that did not reflect initial intentions. Several challenges further exacerbated implementation of complex hospital funding reforms, including a prolonged implementation schedule, turnover of key staff, and inconsistent messaging over time. These factors altered the trajectory of the hospital funding reforms and created confusion amongst those responsible for implementation. Enacting changes to hospital funding policy through a process that is transparent, collaborative, and intentional may increase the likelihood of achieving intended effects.

Project description:BackgroundFunding agencies constitute one essential pillar for policy makers, researchers and health service delivery institutions. Such agencies are increasingly providing support for science implementation. In this paper, we investigate health research funding agencies and how they support the integration of science into policy, and of science into practice, and vice versa.MethodsWe selected six countries: Australia, The Netherlands, France, Canada, England and the United States. For 13 funding agencies, we compared their intentions to support, their actions related to science integration into policy and practice, and the reported benefits of this integration. We did a qualitative content analysis of the reports and information provided on the funding agencies' websites.ResultsMost funding agencies emphasized the importance of science integration into policy and practice in their strategic orientation, and stated how this integration was structured. Their funding activities were embedded in the push, pull, or linkage/exchange knowledge transfer model. However, few program funding efforts were based on all three models. The agencies reported more often on the benefits of integration on practice, rather than on policy. External programs that were funded largely covered science integration into policy and practice at the end of grant stage, while overlooking the initial stages. Finally, external funding actions were more prominent than internally initiated bridging activities and training activities on such integration.ConclusionsThis paper contributes to research on science implementation because it goes beyond the two community model of researchers versus end users, to include funding agencies. Users of knowledge may be end users in health organizations like hospitals; civil servants assigned to decision making positions within funding agencies; civil servants outside of the Ministry of Health, such as the Ministry of the Environment; politicians deciding on health-related legislation; or even university researchers whose work builds on previous research. This heterogeneous sample of users may require different user-specific mechanisms for research initiation, development and dissemination. This paper builds the foundation for further discussion on science implementation from the perspective of funding agencies in the health field. In general, case studies can help in identifying best practices for evidence-informed decision making.