Comparison of manual and electric breast pumps among WIC women returning to work or school in Hawaii

Providing Low-Income Women With a Manual Pump: A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

Low-income, first-time mothers generally breastfeed exclusively and, overall, for a shorter average duration than high-income, multiparous mothers. A potential barrier to breastfeeding success is access to a breast pump for home use. In this pilot study, we estimated the effect of providing a manual breast pump during birth hospitalization for home use on any/exclusive breastfeeding and investigated participant attitudes about manual pumps and their breastfeeding experiences.

METHODS

Sixty low-income, first-time mothers were enrolled in a pilot randomized controlled trial. One-half received a manual breast pump and the other half received an attention control. Breastfeeding exclusivity, duration, and use of the manual pump were assessed at 6 and 12 weeks. Qualitative interviews regarding the breastfeeding experience were completed. Thirty-one women answered 13 questions that were then transcribed, coded, and grouped into themes.

RESULTS

Participants who were randomized to manual breast pump receipt during birth hospitalization had increased manual pump use at 6 weeks (13/19 [68%] versus controls 5/17 [29%]), there was no effect of pump receipt on any nor exclusive breastfeeding at 12 weeks. In qualitative analysis of the overall breastfeeding experience, participants expressed a need for additional support and had conflicting attitudes regarding breastfeeding and the pumping experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual breast pump receipt in hospital among low-income, first-time mothers did not affect breastfeeding exclusivity or duration. Participants reported that early and ongoing lactation support is essential. Strategies to improve breastfeeding outcomes low-income, first-time mothers are needed.

Short-term efficacy of two breast pumps and impact on breastfeeding outcomes at 6 months in exclusively breastfeeding mothers: A randomised trial

The provision of breast pumps is a potential strategy to increase breastfeeding duration. This trial compared the effectiveness and acceptability of two breast pumps in mothers exclusively breastfeeding (EBF) their healthy term infant. It also tested whether provision of pumps versus vouchers of equivalent value influenced breastfeeding or attainment of mothers' goals at 3 and 6 months. Mothers were randomised at 3- to 4-week post-partum (Beijing [n = 30], Moscow [n = 34], London [n = 45], New York [n = 3]) to groups A (Philips single-electric pump, Natural bottle), B (Medela Swing single-electric pump, Calma bottle), or C (Control; vouchers). At 6 weeks, group A and B mothers expressed for 10 min/breast; milk weight and opinions of pump/bottle were recorded. Feeding practices were assessed using questionnaires at 3 and 6 months. Milk weight/flow pattern did not differ between groups. Pump A scored significantly better for ease-of-use, cushion-feel, need-to-lean-forward, pleasant, comfort. At 3 and 6 months, %EBF or meeting their goal was not significantly different; (3 months: 86%, 85%, 84%; 6 months: 20%, 15%, 26%; meeting goal 24%, 17%, 27% for A, B, and C). Expressed breast milk (EBM) provision was higher in groups A and B (3 months: 76%, 76%, 24% (p < 0.001); 6 months: 83%, 87%, 32% (p < 0.001); and negatively predicted EBF at 6 months (OR no EBM 5.07, 95% CI [1.56, 16.5]). The pumps were equally effective for milk expression at 6 weeks. Pump provision did not significantly influence breastfeeding practices or attainment of goals but resulted in higher EBM provision, which was associated with lower EBF but not other breastfeeding categories at 6 months.

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.

Benefits of Incentives for Breastfeeding and Smoking cessation in pregnancy (BIBS): a mixed-methods study to inform trial design

BACKGROUND

Smoking in pregnancy and/or not breastfeeding have considerable negative health outcomes for mother and baby.

AIM

To understand incentive mechanisms of action for smoking cessation in pregnancy and breastfeeding, develop a taxonomy and identify promising, acceptable and feasible interventions to inform trial design.

DESIGN

Evidence syntheses, primary qualitative survey, and discrete choice experiment (DCE) research using multidisciplinary, mixed methods. Two mother-and-baby groups in disadvantaged areas collaborated throughout.

SETTING

UK.

PARTICIPANTS

The qualitative study included 88 pregnant women/recent mothers/partners, 53 service providers, 24 experts/decision-makers and 63 conference attendees. The surveys included 1144 members of the general public and 497 health professionals. The DCE study included 320 women with a history of smoking.

METHODS

(1) Evidence syntheses: incentive effectiveness (including meta-analysis and effect size estimates), delivery processes, barriers to and facilitators of smoking cessation in pregnancy and/or breastfeeding, scoping review of incentives for lifestyle behaviours; (2) qualitative research: grounded theory to understand incentive mechanisms of action and a framework approach for trial design; (3) survey: multivariable ordered logit models; (4) DCE: conditional logit regression and the log-likelihood ratio test.

RESULTS

Out of 1469 smoking cessation and 5408 breastfeeding multicomponent studies identified, 23 smoking cessation and 19 breastfeeding studies were included in the review. Vouchers contingent on biochemically proven smoking cessation in pregnancy were effective, with a relative risk of 2.58 (95% confidence interval 1.63 to 4.07) compared with non-contingent incentives for participation (four studies, 344 participants). Effects continued until 3 months post partum. Inconclusive effects were found for breastfeeding incentives compared with no/smaller incentives (13 studies) but provider commitment contracts for breastfeeding show promise. Intervention intensity is a possible confounder. The acceptability of seven promising incentives was mixed. Women (for vouchers) and those with a lower level of education (except for breastfeeding incentives) were more likely to disagree. Those aged ≤ 44 years and ethnic minority groups were more likely to agree. Agreement was greatest for a free breast pump and least for vouchers for breastfeeding. Universal incentives were preferred to those targeting low-income women. Initial daily text/telephone support, a quitting pal, vouchers for > £20.00 per month and values up to £80.00 increase the likelihood of smoking cessation. Doctors disagreed with provider incentives. A 'ladder' logic model emerged through data synthesis and had face validity with service users. It combined an incentive typology and behaviour change taxonomy. Autonomy and well-being matter. Personal difficulties, emotions, socialising and attitudes of others are challenges to climbing a metaphorical 'ladder' towards smoking cessation and breastfeeding. Incentive interventions provide opportunity 'rungs' to help, including regular skilled flexible support, a pal, setting goals, monitoring and outcome verification. Individually tailored and non-judgemental continuity of care can bolster women's capabilities to succeed. Rigid, prescriptive interventions placing the onus on women to behave 'healthily' risk them feeling pressurised and failing. To avoid 'losing face', women may disengage.

LIMITATIONS

Included studies were heterogeneous and of variable quality, limiting the assessment of incentive effectiveness. No cost-effectiveness data were reported. In surveys, selection bias and confounding are possible. The validity and utility of the ladder logic model requires evaluation with more diverse samples of the target population.

CONCLUSIONS

Incentives provided with other tailored components show promise but reach is a concern. Formal evaluation is recommended. Collaborative service-user involvement is important.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012001980.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Incentives to promote breastfeeding: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Few women in industrialized countries achieve the World Health Organization's recommendation to breastfeed exclusively for 6 months. Governments are increasingly seeking new interventions to address this problem, including the use of incentives. The goal of this study was to assess the evidence regarding the effectiveness of incentive interventions, delivered within or outside of health care settings, to individuals and/or their families seeking to increase and sustain breastfeeding in the first 6 months after birth.

METHODS

Searches of electronic databases, reference lists, and grey literature were conducted to identify relevant reports of published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. All study designs published in English, which met our definition of incentives and that were from a developed country, were eligible for inclusion. Abstract and full-text article review with sequential data extraction were conducted by 2 independent authors.

RESULTS

Sixteen full reports were included in the review. The majority evaluated multicomponent interventions of varying frequency, intensity, and duration. Incentives involved providing access to breast pumps, gifts, vouchers, money, food packages, and help with household tasks, but little consensus in findings was revealed. The lack of high-quality, randomized controlled trials identified by this review and the multicomponent nature of the interventions prohibited meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found that the overall effect of providing incentives for breastfeeding compared with no incentives is unclear due to study heterogeneity and the variation in study quality. Further evidence on breastfeeding incentives offered to women is required to understand the possible effects of these interventions.

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.

"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.

Effectiveness of four manual breast pumps for mothers after preterm delivery in a developing country

BACKGROUND

Hospital-grade electric pumps may be useful to initiate and sustain adequate milk production for mothers who are unable to breast-feed their babies hospitalized at special care nurseries (SCN), but their cost is generally not affordable for SCN and for most mothers in developing countries. Therefore, manual breast pumps (MBPs) can be an alternative, but the best option is unknown considering clinical parameters and mothers' preference from among currently available MBPs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of four MBPs in terms of milk volume, nutritional composition, and breast emptying in order to assist in making a choice for health care personnel and mothers in SCN settings. Duration of expression and maternal preference were also evaluated as secondary outcomes.

METHODS

Mothers of preterm infants used 4 MBPs in a random order, 2 with a squeeze-handle mechanism (Isis and Harmony) and 2 with a cylindrical mechanism (Little Heart and Evenflo), both at the hospital and in home settings using each pump over one 24-hour period.

RESULTS

Milk volume, nutritional composition, breast emptying, and duration of expression were not different among MBPs. Scale of maternal preference rated higher those with the squeeze-handle mechanism than the cylindrical mechanism (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference found in the effectiveness across the four pumps tested. The mothers' rating for comfort and ease of use showed a marked difference between pumps. These factors, plus cost, need to be considered when evaluating manual pumps for use in SCN settings in developing countries.

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 composition, contamination and cost implications of methods of milk expression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 January 2011), CINAHL (1982 to January 2011), conference proceedings, secondary references and contacted researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing methods at any time after birth, and crossover trials commencing at least 28 days after birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies with 10 studies (632 mothers) providing data for analysis.Mothers provided with a relaxation tape produced more milk than mothers who were not (mean difference (MD) 34.70 ml/single expression, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.51 to 59.89, P = 0.007). A lower milk volume over six days was reported when comparing hand expression to the electric pump (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.00 ml, 95% CI -1.64 to -0.36, P = 0.002); other studies of the same pump using different measures did not find a significant difference (12 to 36 hours postpartum SMD -0.38 cc, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.10, P = 0.12); day five postpartum SMD -0.62 ml/day, 95% CI -1.43 to 0.19, P = 0.13). No evidence of difference in volume was found with simultaneous or sequential pumping, or between manual and electric pumps studied. One study reported a higher sodium concentration in hand expressed milk compared to a manual pump (SMD 0.59 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96, P = 0.002) and to an electric pump (SMD 0.70 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.09, P = 0.0003), and lower potassium concentration compared to a manual pump (MD -0.37 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.73, P = 0.05) or to an electric pump (SMD -0.32 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.06, P = 0.10). No evidence of difference was found for energy content, milk contamination or adverse effects. Reports of maternal views were not comparable. 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 early initiation when not feeding at the breast, relaxation, 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, small number of studies reviewed, and the diversity of the interventions argue caution in applying these results beyond the specific method tested in the specific settings.

Breastfeeding women's experience of expressing: a descriptive study

There is an increasing trend in Australia and elsewhere for mothers to express breast milk. The purpose of this study was to explore breastfeeding women's experiences of expressing breast milk. An anonymous online questionnaire was sent to Victorian members of the Australian Breastfeeding Association via an e-mail link. Response fraction was 903 of 3024 (29.9%). The most common reason for expressing milk was to "store extra breast milk" (57%, 479/836). The most important reason was "not enough milk"/"to make more milk" (15%, 118/771). The majority of women (65%, 666/843) used an electric breast pump, and this method of expressing was preferred by 59% (454/769) of women. Adverse effects of pumps were pain (17%, 126/737) and damage to nipples (11%, 86/737). Breast pumps may have a role in enabling women to extend the duration of breast milk feeding, but further research is needed.

Maternal response to two electric breast pumps

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Mechanical characteristics of breast pumps have been shown to influence milk extraction and hormone release in laboratory settings. However, few studies evaluate impact of differences in pump design on long-term breastfeeding success. This study evaluated the impact of a novel pump design on milk extraction, milk fat content, maternal hormone response, maternal satisfaction, long-term milk production, and duration of breastfeeding following return to the workforce.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Healthy women intending to return to work or school and to breastfeed exclusively for <or=4 months were enrolled in late pregnancy (n = 62). Prolactin response to pumping (n = 30) and changes in 24-hour milk volume during a 2-week stimulation protocol (n = 59) were measured in women randomly assigned to a novel (Embrace, Playtex, Westport, CT) or standard (Pump In Style, Medela, Baar, Switzerland) electric breast pump. Milk extraction efficiency (n = 58) and maternal ranking of pump performance (n = 56) were measured using a crossover design. Mothers selected one pump to keep and were contacted (n = 55) at 6 months postpartum to determine breastfeeding behavior.

RESULTS

Prolactin response was greater (p = 0.005) with the novel pump. Milk extraction efficiency was greater (p = 0.001) with the standard pump. Stimulation of 24-hour milk production did not differ between pumps. Women were equally likely to select the two pumps. Feeding behavior at 6 months was not related to pump choice.

CONCLUSIONS

The test pumps stimulate the two arms of the homeostatic mechanism governing milk output (endocrine stimulation and degree of breast emptying) to different degrees, yet have comparable impacts on lactation performance over time.