Economic evaluation of enhanced staff contact for the promotion of breastfeeding for low birth weight infants

Costs and cost-effectiveness of treatment setting for children with wasting, oedema and growth failure/faltering: A systematic review

This systematic review aimed to address the existing evidence gaps, and guide policy decisions on the settings within which to treat infants <12 months of age with growth faltering/failure, and infants and children aged <60 months with moderate wasting or severe wasting and/or bilateral pitting oedema. Twelve electronic databases were searched for studies published before 10 December 2021. The searches yielded 16,709 records from which 31 studies were eligible and included in the review. Three studies were judged as low quality, whilst 14 were moderate and the remaining 14 were high quality. We identified very few cost and cost-effectiveness analyses for most of the models of care with the certainty of evidence being judged at very low or low. However, there were 17 cost and 6 cost-effectiveness analyses for the initiation of treatment in outpatient settings for severe wasting and/or bilateral pitting oedema in infants and children <60 months of age. From this evidence, the costs appear lowest for initiating treatment in community settings, followed by initiating treatment in community and transferring to outpatient settings, initiating treatment in outpatients then transferring to community settings, initiating treatment in outpatient settings, and lastly initiating treatment in inpatient settings. In addition, the evidence suggested that initiation of treatment in outpatient settings is highly cost-effective when compared to doing nothing or no programme implementation scenarios, using country-specific WHO GDP per capita thresholds. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $20 to $145 per DALY averted from a provider perspective, and $68 to $161 per DALY averted from a societal perspective. However, the certainty of the evidence was judged as moderate because of comparisons to do nothing/ no programme scenarios which potentially limits the applicability of the evidence in real-world settings. There is therefore a need for evidence that compare the different available alternatives.

Is proactive telephone-based breastfeeding peer support a cost-effective intervention? A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of the 'Ringing Up about Breastfeeding earlY' (RUBY) randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The 'Ringing Up about Breastfeeding earlY' (RUBY) randomised controlled trial showed increased breastfeeding at 6 months in participants who received the proactive telephone-based peer support breastfeeding intervention compared with participants allocated to receive standard care and supports. The present study aimed to evaluate if the intervention was cost-effective.

DESIGN

A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis.

SETTING

Three metropolitan maternity services in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

First time mothers intending to breastfeed their infant (1152) and peer volunteers (246).

INTERVENTION

The intervention comprised proactive telephone-based support from a peer volunteer from early postpartum up to 6 months. Participants were allocated to usual care (n=578) or the intervention (n=574).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs during a 6-month follow-up period including individual healthcare, breastfeeding support and intervention costs in all participants, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

Costs per mother supported were valued at $263.75 (or $90.33 excluding costs of donated volunteer time). There was no difference between the two arms in costs for infant and mothers in healthcare and breastfeeding support costs. These figures result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4146 ($1393 if volunteer time excluded) per additional mother breast feeding at 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Considering the significant improvement in breastfeeding outcomes, this intervention is potentially cost-effective. These findings, along with the high value placed on the intervention by women and peer volunteers provides robust evidence to upscale the implementation of this intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12612001024831.

Cost-effectiveness evidence for strategies to promote or support breastfeeding: a systematic search and narrative literature review

BACKGROUND

Global health policy recommends exclusive breastfeeding until infants are 6 months. Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding promotion strategies. This paper presents a systematic search and narrative review of economic evaluations of strategies to support or promote breastfeeding. The aim of the review is to bring together current knowledge to guide researchers and commissioners towards potentially cost-effective strategies to promote or support breastfeeding.

METHODS

Searches were conducted of electronic databases, including MEDLINE and Scopus, for economic evaluations relevant to breastfeeding, published up to August 2019. Records were screened against pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria and quality was assessed using a published checklist. Costs reported in included studies underwent currency conversion and inflation to a single year and currency so that they could be compared. The review protocol was registered on the PROSPERO register of literature reviews (ID, CRD42019141721).

RESULTS

There were 212 non-duplicate citations. Four were included in the review, which generally indicated that interventions were cost-effective. Two studies reported that breastfeeding promotion for low-birth weight babies in critical care is associated with lower costs and greater health benefits than usual care and so is likely to be cost-effective. Peer-support for breastfeeding was associated with longer duration of exclusivity with costs ranging from £19-£107 per additional month (two studies).

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of strategies to promote breastfeeding, although the quality of the current evidence is reasonably high. Future studies should integrate evaluations of the effectiveness of strategies with economic analyses.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Feeding Guidelines for Infants Following Intestinal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of postoperative feeding guidelines to reduce complications in infants with intestinal surgery compared to standard feeding practices.

METHODS

Using outcomes from a cohort study, Markov models from health care and societal perspectives simulated costs per hospitalization among infants fed via guidelines versus standard practice. Short-term outcomes included intestinal failure-associated liver disease, necrotizing enterocolitis after feeding, sepsis, and mortality. Effectiveness was measured as length of stay. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) compared cost over length of stay. Univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses with 10,000 Monte Carlo Simulations were performed. A second decision tree model captured the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using utilities associated with long-term outcomes (liver cirrhosis and transplantation).

RESULTS

In the hospital perspective, standard feeding had a cost of $31,258,902 and 8296 hospital days, and the feeding guidelines had a cost of $29,295,553 and 8096 hospital days. The ICER was $-9832 per hospital stay with guideline use. More than 90% of the ICERs were in the dominant quadrant. Results were similar for the societal perspective. Long-term costs and utilities in the guideline group were $2830 and 0.91, respectively, versus $4030 and 0.90, resulting in an ICER of $-91,756/QALY.

CONCLUSION

In our models, feeding guideline use resulted in cost savings and reduction in hospital stay in the short-term and cost savings and an increase in QALYs in the long-term. Using a systematic approach to feed surgical infants appears to reduce costly complications, but further data from a larger cohort are needed.

Cost-effectiveness of offering an area-level financial incentive on breast feeding: a within-cluster randomised controlled trial analysis

OBJECTIVE

To provide the first estimate of the cost-effectiveness of financial incentive for breastfeeding intervention compared with usual care.

DESIGN

Within-cluster ('ward'-level) randomised controlled trial cost-effectiveness analysis (trial registration number ISRCTN44898617).

SETTING

Five local authority districts in the North of England.

PARTICIPANTS

5398 mother-infant dyads (intervention arm), 4612 mother-infant dyads (control arm).

INTERVENTIONS

Offering a financial incentive (over a 6-month period) on breast feeding to women living in areas with low breastfeeding prevalence (<40% at 6-8 weeks).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Babies breast fed (receiving breastmilk) at 6-8 weeks, and cost per additional baby breast fed.

METHODS

Costs were compared with differences in area-level data on babies' breast fed in order to estimate a cost per additional baby breast fed and the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains required over the lifetime of babies to justify intervention cost.

RESULTS

In the trial, the total cost of providing the intervention in 46 wards was £462 600, with an average cost per ward of £9989 and per baby of £91. At follow-up, area-level breastfeeding prevalence at 6-8 weeks was 31.7% (95% CI 29.4 to 34.0) in control areas and 37.9% (95% CI 35.0 to 40.8) in intervention areas. The adjusted difference between intervention and control was 5.7 percentage points (95% CI 2.7 to 8.6; p<0.001), resulting in 10 (95% CI 6 to 14) more additional babies breast fed in the intervention wards (39 vs 29). The cost per additional baby breast fed at 6-8 weeks was £974. At a cost per QALY threshold of £20 000 (recommended in England), an additional breastfed baby would need to show a QALY gain of 0.05 over their lifetime to justify the intervention cost. If decision makers are willing to pay £974 (or more) per additional baby breast fed at a QALY gain of 0.05, then this intervention could be cost-effective. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

This study provides information to help inform public health guidance on breast feeding. To make the economic case unequivocal, evidence on the varied and long-term health benefits of breast feeding to both the baby and mother and the effectiveness of financial incentives for breastfeeding beyond 6-8 weeks is required.

A study to prolong breastfeeding duration: design and rationale of the Parent Infant Feeding Initiative (PIFI) randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Very few Australian infants are exclusively breastfed to 6 months as recommended by the World Health Organization. There is strong empirical evidence that fathers have a major impact on their partner's decision to breastfeed and continuation of breastfeeding. Fathers want to participate in the breastfeeding decision making process and to know how they can support their partner to achieve their breastfeeding goals. The aim of the Parent Infant Feeding Initiative (PIFI) is to evaluate the effect on duration of any and exclusive breastfeeding of three breastfeeding promotion interventions of differing intensity and duration, targeted at couples but channelled through the male partner. The study will also undertake a cost-effectiveness evaluation of the interventions.

METHODS/DESIGN

The PIFI study is a factorial randomised controlled trial. Participants will be mothers and their male partners attending antenatal classes at selected public and private hospitals with maternity departments in Perth, Western Australia. Fathers will be randomly allocated to either the usual care control group (CG), one of two medium intensity (MI1 and MI2) interventions, or a high intensity (HI) intervention. MI1 will include a specialised antenatal breastfeeding education session for fathers with supporting print materials. MI2 will involve the delivery of an antenatal and postnatal social support intervention delivered via a smartphone application and HI will include both the specialised antenatal class and the social support intervention. Outcome data will be collected from couples at baseline and at six and 26 weeks postnatally. A total of 1600 couples will be recruited. This takes into account a 25% attrition rate, and will detect at least a 10% difference in the proportion of mothers breastfeeding between any two of the groups at 26 weeks at 80% power and 5% level of significance, using a Log-rank survival test. Multivariable survival and logistic regression analyses will be used to assess the effect of the treatment groups on the outcomes after adjusting for covariates.

DISCUSSION

The PIFI study will be the first Australian study to provide Level II evidence of the impact on breastfeeding duration of a comprehensive, multi-level, male-partner-focused breastfeeding intervention. Unique features of the intervention include its large sample size, delivery of two of the interventions by mobile device technology, a rigorous assessment of intervention fidelity and a cost-effectiveness evaluation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000605695. Registered 6 June 2014.

The economic benefits of increasing kangaroo skin-to-skin care and breastfeeding in neonatal units: analysis of a pragmatic intervention in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

A number of significant recent research studies have used techniques of economic modelling to demonstrate the potential benefits of increasing breastfeeding rates in the UK overall, and specifically in neonatal care. This paper complements this growing body of evidence by presenting an economic analysis of data from an actual intervention, the 'Getting It Right From the Start' programme, which took place in the north of the UK during 2011-12, with the aim of increasing breastfeeding and kangaroo skin-to-skin care rates in neonatal units.

METHODS

'Getting It Right from the Start' was a pragmatic, multifaceted programme of change delivered under the auspices of the regional Health Innovation and Education Cluster, of which 17 were established in the UK in 2010. It engaged with 18 neonatal units in two Neonatal Networks with the aim of increasing kangaroo skin-to-skin care and breastfeeding rates. As part of the evaluation of the programme, we conducted an economic study comparing the overall costs and benefits of the intervention.

RESULTS

Overall, the economic analysis demonstrated that for every £1 invested in the intervention to increase kangaroo skin-to-skin care and breastfeeding rates, between £4.00 and £13.82 of benefit was generated. This was spread across different healthcare settings and the timescale for the realisation of benefits will vary. The increases in kangaroo skin-to-skin care generated the greatest cost savings, with potential cost savings ranging between £668,000 (minimum cost assumptions) to more than £2 m (maximum cost assumptions). Increases in breastfeeding associated with the project generated between £68,486 and £582,432. The majority of the cost savings generated were associated with reductions in cases of gastroenteritis and necrotising enterocolitis.

CONCLUSION

This was one of the first economic evaluations of an actual intervention to increase breastfeeding and kangaroo skin-to-skin care in neonatal units. It complements the existing economic models by demonstrating that a real intervention in clinical practice was both cost effective as well as clinically beneficial. Future interventions with similar methodology should be supported and considered likely to generate significant cost savings compared to outlay. Economic evaluation should be more frequently included in studies of practical interventions in clinical settings to increase breastfeeding.

Markets, breastfeeding and trade in mothers' milk

This introduction to a special issue on the economics of breastfeeding draws attention to the lack of economic justice for women. Human milk is being bought and sold. Commodifying and marketing human milk and breastfeeding risk reinforcing social and gender economic inequities. Yet there are potential benefits for breastfeeding, and some of the world's poorest women might profit. How can we improve on the present situation where everyone except the woman who donates her milk benefits? Breastfeeding is a global food production system with unsurpassed capacity to promote children's food security and maternal and child health, but it is side-lined by trade negotiators who seek instead to expand world markets for cow's milk-based formula. Regulators focus on potential risks of feeding donated human milk, rather than on health risks of exposing infants and young children to highly processed bovine milk. Similarly, policymakers aspire to provide universal health care access that may be unaffordable when two thirds of the world's children are not optimally nourished in infancy, resulting in a global double burden of infectious and chronic disease. Universal breastfeeding requires greater commitment of resources, but such investment remains lacking despite the cost effectiveness of breastfeeding protection, support and promotion in and beyond health services. Women invest substantially in breastfeeding but current policy - epitomised by the G20 approach to the 'gender gap' - fails to acknowledge the economic value of this unpaid care work. Economic incentives for mothers to optimally breastfeed are dwarfed by health system and commercial incentives promoting formula feeding and by government fiscal policies which ignore the resulting economic costs. 'The market' fails to protect breastfeeding, because market prices give the wrong signals. An economic approach to the problem of premature weaning from optimal breastfeeding may help prioritise global maternity protection as the foundation for sustainable development of human capital and labour productivity. It would remove fiscal subsidies for breast milk substitutes, tax their sale to recoup health system costs, and penalise their free supply, promotion and distribution. By removing widespread incentives for premature weaning, the resources would be available for the world to invest more in breastfeeding.

Highlighting the evidence gap: how cost-effective are interventions to improve early childhood nutrition and development?

There is growing evidence of the effectiveness of early childhood interventions to improve the growth and development of children. Although, historically, nutrition and stimulation interventions may have been delivered separately, they are increasingly being tested as a package of early childhood interventions that synergistically improve outcomes over the life course. However, implementation at scale is seldom possible without first considering the relative cost and cost-effectiveness of these interventions. An evidence gap in this area may deter large-scale implementation, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. We conduct a literature review to establish what is known about the cost-effectiveness of early childhood nutrition and development interventions. A set of predefined search terms and exclusion criteria standardized the search across five databases. The search identified 15 relevant articles. Of these, nine were from studies set in high-income countries and six in low- and middle-income countries. The articles either calculated the cost-effectiveness of nutrition-specific interventions (n = 8) aimed at improving child growth, or parenting interventions (stimulation) to improve early childhood development (n = 7). No articles estimated the cost-effectiveness of combined interventions. Comparing results within nutrition or stimulation interventions, or between nutrition and stimulation interventions was largely prevented by the variety of outcome measures used in these analyses. This article highlights the need for further evidence relevant to low- and middle-income countries. To facilitate comparison of cost-effectiveness between studies, and between contexts where appropriate, a move towards a common outcome measure such as the cost per disability-adjusted life years averted is advocated. Finally, given the increasing number of combined nutrition and stimulation interventions being tested, there is a significant need for evidence of cost-effectiveness for combined programmes. This too would be facilitated by the use of a common outcome measure able to pool the impact of both nutrition and stimulation activities.

Is the UK NICE "reference case" influencing the practice of pediatric quality-adjusted life-year measurement within economic evaluations?

OBJECTIVES

To report findings from a systematic review, this article sought to address two related questions. First, how has the practice of UK pediatric cost-utility analyses evolved over time, in particular how are health-related outcomes assessed and valued? Second, how do the methods compare to the limited guidance available, in particular, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) reference case(s)?

METHODS

Electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were conducted for the period May 2004 to April 2012 and the Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation database for the period May 2004 to December 2010. Identified studies were screened by three independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were identified, 11 of which elicit utility values through primary research. A discrepancy was identified between the methods used for outcome measurement and valuation and the methods advocated within the NICE reference case. Despite NICE recommending the use of preference-based instruments designed specifically for children, most studies that were identified had used adult measures. In fact, the measurement of quality-adjusted life-years is the aspect of economic evaluation with the greatest amount of variability and the area that most digressed from the NICE reference case.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations stemming from the review are that all studies should specify the age range of childhood and include separate statements of perspective for costs and effects as well as the reallocation of research funding away from systematic review studies toward good quality primary research measuring utilities in children.

The cost of using donor human milk in the NICU to achieve exclusively human milk feeding through 32 weeks postmenstrual age

OBJECTIVES

Donor human milk (DHM) is increasingly being used in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) to achieve exclusive human milk (EHM) feedings in preterm infants. The aim of the study was to determine the cost of DHM to achieve EHM feeding for very preterm infants. The hypothesis was that the cost of DHM per infant is modulated by the availability of mother's own milk (MOM).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Preterm infants (<1,500 g at birth weight or <33 weeks in gestational age) were retrospectively evaluated for a 1-year interval. MOM, DHM, and formula feeding categories were determined. A DHM feeding log was retrospectively analyzed for feeding volumes (in milliliters) and duration (in days). Four categories were created, based on maternal ability to provide sufficient breastmilk volumes and her intention to breastfeed. The volume, duration, and cost of DHM were calculated for each category.

RESULTS

Forty-six of the 64 (72%) infants admitted to the NICU who were <33 weeks in gestational age received DHM. Four categories of DHM use were observed. The mean costs of DHM were $27 for infants of mothers who provided sufficient breastmilk through to discharge, $154 for infants of mothers who had insufficient milk supply during admission, $281 for infants of mothers who went home on formula but received any volume of MOM during admission, and $590 for infants who received no MOM during admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Most NICU mothers (72%) of very preterm infants were unable to provide all of the milk necessary for an EHM diet. Few infants (15%) received exclusively DHM. The cost of DHM per NICU infant ranged from $27 to $590 and was influenced by the mother's willingness or ability to provide human milk.

"Breastfeeding" by feeding expressed mother's milk

This article provides the pediatric community with a practical overview of milk expression and an update on the recent literature. Approaches for working mothers, preterm infants, critically ill infants, and mothers before lactogenesis II are presented separately, as these groups may benefit from practices tailored to individual needs.

A role for research: an observation on preventive services for women

BACKGROUND

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) added preventive services for women, recommended by the IOM, to healthcare coverage requirements beginning in August 2011.

PURPOSE

The current review provides evidence on the economic impact of services that will be covered under the ACA, focusing on IOM-recommended measures that address women's health.

METHODS

This review analyzed the cost-effectiveness literature related to these services using the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org), which catalogs detailed information on cost-effectiveness studies published in English in the peer-reviewed literature. In order to keep the review relevant to current clinical practice, the analysis was restricted to studies published in 2000-2010. The data search and analysis were performed in 2011.

RESULTS

Cost-effectiveness studies have evaluated a limited subset of the preventive measures available for women. Further, few cost-effectiveness studies have evaluated the recommended counseling and screening services for women. Of 16 relevant studies found, eight focused on HIV screening, with results varying substantially depending on the specific groups screened and the screening frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

The current review underscores the finding that there is a substantial gap in the health economic literature on preventive care, especially with respect to screening and counseling of women in the primary care setting. There is some evidence that better access to preventive services can be maintained at a reasonable cost to the healthcare system, and that certain services may even lower healthcare costs.

Expansion of the ten steps to successful breastfeeding into neonatal intensive care: expert group recommendations for three guiding principles

The World Health Organization/United Nations Children's Fund Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative: Revised, Updated, and Expanded for Integrated Care (2009) identifies the need for expanding the guidelines originally developed for maternity units to include neonatal intensive care. For this purpose, an expert group from the Nordic countries and Quebec, Canada, prepared a draft proposal, which was discussed at an international workshop in Uppsala, Sweden, in September 2011. The expert group suggests the addition of 3 "Guiding Principles" to the Ten Steps to support this vulnerable population of mothers and infants: 1. The staff attitude to the mother must focus on the individual mother and her situation. 2. The facility must provide family-centered care, supported by the environment. 3. The health care system must ensure continuity of care, that is, continuity of pre-, peri-, and postnatal care and post-discharge care. The goal of the expert group is to create a final document, the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative for Neonatal Units, including standards and criteria for each of the 3 Guiding Principles, Ten Steps, and the Code; to develop tools for self-appraisal and monitoring compliance with the guidelines; and for external assessment to decide whether neonatal intensive/intermediate care units meet the conditions required to be designated as Baby-Friendly. The documents will be finalized after consultation with the World Health Organization/United Nations Children's Fund, and the goal is to offer these documents to international health care, professional, and other nongovernmental organizations involved in lactation and breastfeeding support for mothers of infants who require special neonatal care.

Costs related to promoting breastfeeding among urban low-income women

OBJECTIVE

To describe the costs of providing support to breastfeeding low-income women and compares costs to cost offsets of the intervention.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to promote breastfeeding among low-income women with full-term infants.

SETTING

A university hospital and a community hospital in Baltimore, Maryland.

PARTICIPANTS

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) eligible breastfeeding women (N = 328) were randomized to usual care or the community health nurse/peer counselor intervention.

METHODS

The researchers collected and described personnel and mileage costs over the entire duration of the intervention (24 weeks). Researchers also compared (using t tests) change in resources associated with breastfeeding including the number of clinic visits, hospital nights, emergency room visits, prescriptions, and formula feedings per day up to 12 weeks.

RESULTS

The cost of the personnel and travel required for the intervention was $296 per woman. The use of medical care and number of formula feedings per day were similar for the intervention and usual care groups. When differences in use of medical care and formula feeding were statistically significant, the intervention group used fewer resources.

CONCLUSION

Support for breastfeeding by community health nurses and peer counselors is partially offset by reducing medical care utilization and formula feeding costs.