When baby's chronic illness and disability interfere with breastfeeding: Women's emotional adjustment

Using art to raise awareness of breastfed children with medical complexity

Background

Current infant feeding support is often targeted at establishing breastfeeding in healthy term infants, or supporting lactation for preterm infants in the neonatal setting. Breastfeeding presents different challenges for children beyond the neonatal period who have a medical complexity. The tendency to focus on breastfeeding as a preventative public health intervention overlooks the fact that mothers and children with medical complexity often require additional and targeted support to continue to breastfeed. Despite this identified need, there is very little research, policy or clinically specific teaching within paediatrics that is nuanced enough to support this vulnerable population.

Raising awareness of breastfed children with medical complexity in paediatrics

While research, policy and embedded Baby Friendly Health Initiative (BFHI) standards in both the maternity and neonatal directorates exists, paediatrics is a separate discipline and contrastingly, has very little lactation support infrastructure. To this end, a doctoral study was commenced aiming to identify the differences for this vulnerable and largely overlooked group. One of the related outputs of the ongoing research is the use of creative methods to raise awareness. This commentary highlights a project with an artist to develop a series of portraits alongside a book and health professional education to increase awareness of these children’s needs.

Conclusions

The breastfeeding needs and challenges of children in the paediatric setting are unique and require additional awareness, creativity and skills to support optimal infant and young child breastfeeding. Using art can connect professionals to the lived experiences of families trying to persevere through medical complexity.

The challenges of medically complex breastfed children and their families: A systematic review

Exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months and then alongside solid food for the first 2 years and beyond is the gold standard in young child nutrition. There is an abundance of literature relating to the preventative nature of breastmilk and breastfeeding against many infectious diseases and chronic conditions. However, despite medically complex infants and children being a group that could benefit most from continued breastfeeding, breastfeeding duration and exclusivity are lower among more complex paediatric populations. The reasons for this are not well known, and there is a paucity of data relating to supporting infants who have acute or chronic illness, disability or congenital anomaly to breastfeed. This systematic review aimed to understand the challenges of breast/chestfeeding the medically complex child and to establish the gaps in healthcare provision that act as barriers to optimal infant and young child feeding. The search was limited to studies published in English, focused on breastfed sick infants in hospital, with no date limits as there is no previous systematic review. Of 786 papers retrieved, 11 studies were included for review, and seven themes identified. Themes included practical and psychological challenges of continuing to breastfeed in a hospital setting, complications of the condition making breastfeeding difficult, lack of specialist breastfeeding support from hospital staff and a lack of availability of specialist equipment to support complex breastfeeding. The findings affirm the lack of consistent high-quality care for lactation support in paediatric settings and reinforce the need for further focused research in this area.

Methods of milk expression for lactating women

BACKGROUND

Breastfeeding is important, however not all infants can feed at the breast and methods of expressing milk need evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess acceptability, effectiveness, safety, effect on milk composition, contamination and costs of methods of milk expression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (21 March 2016), handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings, and contacted experts in the field to seek additional published or unpublished studies. We also examined reference lists of all relevant retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing methods at any time after birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 41 trials involving 2293 participants, with 22 trials involving 1339 participants contributing data for analysis. Twenty-six of the trials referred to mothers of infants in neonatal units (n = 1547) and 14 to mothers of healthy infants at home (n = 730), with one trial containing mothers of both neonatal and healthy older infants (n = 16). Eleven trials compared one or more types of pump versus hand expression and 14 studies compared one type of pump versus another type of pump, with three of these studies comparing both hand expression and pump types. Twenty studies compared a specific protocol or adjunct behaviour including sequential versus simultaneous pumping protocols, pumping frequency, provision of an education and support intervention, relaxation, breast massage, combining hand expression with pumping and a breast cleansing protocol.Due to heterogeneity in participants, interventions, and outcomes measured or reported, we were unable to pool findings for most of the specified outcomes. It was not possible therefore to produce a 'Summary of findings' table in this update. Most of the included results were derived from single studies. Trials took place in 14 countries under a variety of circumstances and were published from 1982 to 2015. Sixteen of the 30 trials that evaluated pumps or products had support from the manufacturers. The risk of bias of the included studies was variable. Primary outcomesOnly one of the 17 studies examining maternal satisfaction/acceptability with the method or adjunct behaviour provided data suitable for analysis. In this study, self-efficacy was assessed by asking mothers if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: 'I don't want anyone to see me (hand expressing/pumping)'. The study found that mothers who were using the electric pump were more likely to agree with the statement compared to mothers hand expressing, (mean difference (MD) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.25; P = 0.01, participants = 68). Mothers who were hand expressing reported that the instructions for expression were clearer compared to the electric pump, (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.05; P = 0.02, participants = 68). Descriptive reporting of satisfaction in the other studies varied in the measures used, did not indicate a clear preference for one pump type, although there was satisfaction with some relaxation and support interventions.We found no clinically significant differences between methods related to contamination of the milk that compared any type of pump to hand expression (risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.61; P = 0.51, participants = 28), manual pump compared to hand expression, (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.58; P = 0.30, participants = 142) a large electric pump compared to hand expression (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.49; P = 0.61, participants = 123), or a large electric pump compared to a manual pump (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.26; P = 0.59, participants = 141).The level of maternal breast or nipple pain or damage was similar in comparisons of a large electric pump to hand expression (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.71; P = 0.96, participants = 68). A study comparing a manual and large electric pump, reported sore nipples in 7% for both groups and engorgement in 4% using a manual pump versus 6% using an electric pump; and in one study no nipple damage was reported in the hand-expression group, and one case of nipple damage in each of the manual pump and the large electric pump groups.One study examined adverse effects on infants, however as the infants did not all receive their mothers' expressed milk, we have not included the results. Secondary outcomesThe quantity of expressed milk obtained was increased, in some studies by a clinically significant amount, in interventions involving relaxation, music, warmth, massage, initiation of pumping, increased frequency of pumping and suitable breast shield size. Support programmes and simultaneous compared to sequential pumping did not show a difference in milk obtained. No pump consistently increased the milk volume obtained significantly.In relation to nutrient quality, hand expression or a large electric pump were found to provide higher protein than a manual pump, and hand expression provided higher sodium and lower potassium compared to a large electric pump or a manual pump. Fat content was higher with breast massage when pumping; no evidence of difference was found for energy content between methods.No consistent effect was found related to prolactin change or effect on oxytocin release with pump type or method. Economic aspects were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The most suitable method for milk expression may depend on the time since birth, purpose of expression and the individual mother and infant. Low-cost interventions including initiation of milk expression sooner after birth when not feeding at the breast, relaxation, massage, warming the breasts, hand expression and lower cost pumps may be as effective, or more effective, than large electric pumps for some outcomes. Variation in nutrient content across methods may be relevant to some infants. Small sample sizes, large standard deviations, and the diversity of the interventions argue caution in applying these results beyond the specific method tested in the specific settings. Independently funded research is needed for more trials on hand expression, relaxation and other techniques that do not have a commercial potential.

Methods of milk expression for lactating women

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a 2008 Cochrane review. Breastfeeding is important. However, not all infants can feed at the breast and methods of expressing milk need evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess acceptability, effectiveness, safety, effect on milk composition, contamination and cost implications of methods of milk expression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2014), CINAHL (1982 to March 2014), conference proceedings, secondary references and contacted researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing methods at any time after birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 34 studies involving 1998 participants, with 17 trials involving 961 participants providing data for analysis. Eight studies compared one or more types of pump versus hand expression and 14 studies compared one type of pump versus another type of pump, with three of these studies comparing both hand expression and multiple pump types. Fifteen studies compared a specific protocol or adjunct behaviour including sequential versus simultaneous pumping protocols (five studies), pumping > 4 times per day versus < 3 times per day (one study), provision of a milk expression education and support intervention to mothers of preterm infants versus no provision (one study), provision of audio/visual relaxation to mothers of preterm infants versus no specific relaxation (two studies), commencing pumping within one hour of delivery versus between one to six hours (one study), breast massage before or during pumping versus no massage (two studies, of which one also tested a second behaviour), therapeutic touch versus none (one study), warming breasts before pumping versus not warming breasts (one study), combining hand expression with pumping versus pumping alone (one study) and a breast cleansing protocol versus no protocol (one study).There were insufficient comparable data on outcomes to undertake meta-analysis and data reported relates to evidence from single studies.Only one of the 17 studies examining maternal satisfaction/acceptability provided data in a way that could be analysed, reporting that mothers assigned to the pumping group had more agreement with the statement 'I don't want anyone to see me pumping' than mothers in the hand expression group and the statement 'I don't want anyone to see me hand expressing' (n = 68, mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.25 to -0.15, P = 0.01), and that mothers found instructions for hand expression were clearer than for pumping (n = 68, MD 0.40, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.75, P = 0.02). No evidence of a difference was found between methods related to adverse effects of milk contamination (one study, n = 28, risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.27, P = 0.51), (one study, n = 142 milk samples, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.58, P = 0.30), (one study, n = 123 milk samples, MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.49, P = 0.61), (one study, n = 141 milk samples, MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.26, P = 0.59 ); or level of maternal breast or nipple pain or damage (one study, n = 68, MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.71, P = 0.96).For the secondary outcomes, greater volume was obtained when mothers with infants in a neonatal unit were provided with a relaxation tape or music-listening interventions to use while pumping, when the breasts was warmed before pumping or massaged while pumping.Initiation of milk pumping within 60 minutes of birth of a very low birthweight infant obtained higher mean milk quantity in the first week than the group who initiated pumping later. No evidence of difference in volume was found with simultaneous or sequential pumping or between pumps studied. Differences between methods was found for sodium, potassium, protein and fat constituents; no evidence of difference was found for energy content.No consistent effect was found related to prolactin change or effect on oxytocin release with pump type or method. Economic aspects were not reported.Most studies were classified as unclear or low risk of bias. Most studies did not provide any information regarding blinding of outcome assessment. Fifteen of the 25 studies that evaluated pumps or products had support from the manufacturers.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The most suitable method for milk expression may depend on the time since birth, purpose of expression and the individual mother and infant. Low-cost interventions including early initiation when not feeding at the breast, listening to relaxation music, massage and warming of the breasts, hand expression and lower cost pumps may be as effective, or more effective, than large electric pumps for some outcomes. Small sample sizes, large standard deviations, and the diversity of the interventions argue caution in applying these results beyond the specific method tested in the specific settings.

Expressionists of the twenty-first century: the commodification and commercialization of expressed breast milk

Breast milk expression has been promoted as liberating for women and as offering them more choices, but there has been little research on women's experiences of it and even less critical commentary on the consequences of its incorporation into mainstream behavior. Drawing on narratives of women in the United Kingdom about breastfeeding, we explore the increasingly popular practice of expressing and feeding expressed breast milk. We argue that breast milk has become commodified, breastfeeding commercialized and technologized, and the mother-infant relationship disrupted. We suggest that breastfeeding as a process is being undermined by vested interests that portray it as unreliable and reconstruct it in artificial feeding terms, so playing on women's insecurities. The major beneficiaries of expression are fathers who want increased involvement in infant care and commercial enterprises that aim to maximize profits for shareholders.