An assets-based intervention before and after birth to improve breastfeeding initiation and continuation: the ABA feasibility RCT

Lessons for the UK on implementation and evaluation of breastfeeding support: evidence syntheses and stakeholder engagement

Background

Breastfeeding impacts positively on multiple health outcomes, but < 50% of UK women breastfeed at 8 weeks. Women with long-term conditions face additional challenges in breastfeeding.

Objectives

To synthesise global and UK evidence to co-create an implementation and evaluation toolkit for cost-effective breastfeeding support in the NHS.

Design

Evidence syntheses with stakeholder engagement.

Review methods

Systematic reviews examined effectiveness of breastfeeding support for (1) healthy women and (2) women with long-term conditions using Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group methods. Mixed-methods systematic reviews synthesised process evaluations of effective breastfeeding support interventions for healthy women and experiences of receiving/providing support for breastfeeding women with long-term conditions. Cross-study synthesis integrated qualitative and quantitative findings. Systematic reviews synthesised evidence on the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding support following National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. All searches were conducted from May 2021 to October 2022. Stakeholder engagement and toolkit development comprised online discussions, a modified Delphi study, focus groups and four workshops. Participants were 23 stakeholders, 16 parents in the parents' panels, 15 women in the focus groups and 87 stakeholders who attended the workshops.

Results

We found considerably more interventions designed for healthy women (review 1) than aimed at women with long-term conditions (reviews 1 and 4); approximately half of the studies were targeted at groups at higher risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes, and the impact of support may be different in these populations. Despite this, studies from review 2 found that women perceived the provision of support as positive, important and needed. Studies from review 5 echoed a range of suggestions from participants regarding potential strategies to improve breastfeeding support, with the most widely reported being the need to acknowledge the role and influence of other sources of support (e.g. partners, family, friends, peers, external professionals, web-based resources) and involving these sources in the provision of breastfeeding support for women with long-term conditions. In reviews 3 and 6, there was uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding support interventions due to the limited number of studies and lack of good-quality evidence.

Limitations

There was a lack of evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding interventions in the UK. There was often insufficient information reported about intervention characteristics.

Conclusions

'Breastfeeding only' support probably reduces the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding. The evidence for 'breastfeeding plus' interventions is less consistent, but these may reduce the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and at 6 months. We found no evidence of differential intervention effects regarding mode of provision or provider. Cost-effectiveness is uncertain due to the lack of good-quality evidence. Key enablers of successful implementation were responsiveness and tailoring of interventions to both women's and supporters' needs. Breastfeeding support as delivered in the included studies probably has little to no effect on breastfeeding outcomes for women with long-term conditions. The mixed-methods synthesis and stakeholder work identified that existing interventions may not address the complex needs of these women. The main study output is a co-produced toolkit to guide implementation and evaluation of breastfeeding support services in the UK.

Future work

Evaluation of breastfeeding support for all women, particularly those at risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes (e.g. long-term conditions, deprivation). This could involve tailoring the toolkit to local contexts via implementation and effectiveness studies or using quality improvement studies.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022337239, CRD42021229769 and CRD42022374509. The reviews of economic evidence were not registered; however, the review protocol can be accessed via the repository held by Queen's University Belfast Research Portal (https://pure.qub.ac.uk/).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130995) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies

BACKGROUND

There is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant's diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To describe types of breastfeeding support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. 2. To examine the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding support interventions in terms of whether they offered only breastfeeding support or breastfeeding support in combination with a wider maternal and child health intervention ('breastfeeding plus' support).  3. To examine the effectiveness of the following intervention characteristics on breastfeeding support:      a. type of support (e.g. face-to-face, telephone, digital technologies, group or individual support, proactive or reactive);      b. intensity of support (i.e. number of postnatal contacts);      c. person delivering the intervention (e.g. healthcare professional, lay person);     d. to examine whether the impact of support varied between high- and low-and middle-income countries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes results of searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) (11 May 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care. Support could be provided face-to-face, over the phone or via digital technologies. All studies had to meet the trustworthiness criteria.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods. Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and study trustworthiness.  The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 116 trials of which 103 contribute data to the analyses. In total more than 98,816 mother-infant pairs were included.  Moderate-certainty evidence indicated that 'breastfeeding only' support probably reduced the number of women stopping breastfeeding for all primary outcomes: stopping any breastfeeding at six months (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.89 to 0.97); stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93); stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97); and stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90). Similar findings were reported for the secondary breastfeeding outcomes except for any breastfeeding at two months and 12 months when the evidence was uncertain if 'breastfeeding only' support helped reduce the number of women stopping breastfeeding.  The evidence for 'breastfeeding plus' was less consistent. For primary outcomes there was some evidence that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably reduced the number of women stopping any breastfeeding (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.97, moderate-certainty evidence) or exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.90).  'Breastfeeding plus' interventions may have a beneficial effect on reducing the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95). The evidence suggests that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably results in little to no difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08, moderate-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes, it was uncertain if 'breastfeeding plus' support helped reduce the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding at any time points.  There were no consistent findings emerging from the narrative synthesis of the non-breastfeeding outcomes (maternal satisfaction with care, maternal satisfaction with feeding method, infant morbidity, and maternal mental health), except for a possible reduction of diarrhoea in intervention infants.  We considered the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Blinding of participants and personnel is not feasible in such interventions and as studies utilised self-report breastfeeding data, there is also a risk of bias in outcome assessment.   We conducted meta-regression to explore substantial heterogeneity for the primary outcomes using the following categories: person providing care; mode of delivery; intensity of support; and income status of country.  It is possible that moderate levels (defined as 4-8 visits) of 'breastfeeding only' support may be associated with a more beneficial effect on exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and six months. 'Breastfeeding only' support may also be more effective in reducing women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months compared to women in high-income countries (HICs). However, no other differential effects were found and thus heterogeneity remains largely unexplained. The meta-regression suggested that there were no differential effects regarding person providing support or mode of delivery, however, power was limited.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When 'breastfeeding only' support is offered to women, the duration and in particular, the exclusivity of breastfeeding is likely to be increased. Support may also be more effective in reducing the number of women stopping breastfeeding at three to four months compared to later time points.  For 'breastfeeding plus' interventions the evidence is less certain. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Support can also be offered face-to-face, via telephone or digital technologies, or a combination and may be more effective when delivered on a schedule of four to eight visits. Further work is needed to identify components of the effective interventions and to deliver interventions on a larger scale.

Who Gets to Breastfeed? A Narrative Ecological Analysis of Women's Infant Feeding Experiences in the UK

The early post-natal period is a critical period in women's infant feeding journeys, often marked by high levels of unintended breastfeeding cessation. Previous research has argued that infant feeding should be perceived within a complex system whereby factors operating at different ecological levels (i.e., individual, social/community networks, cultural/institutional) interact to affect individual behaviors. However, currently, more work needs to be done to implement an ecological approach in breastfeeding programs. We adopted a complex-systems lens approach to explore how multi-level factors-individual, mother-infant dyad, health service, family and social networks, and wider community infrastructure-interacted with women's motivations and experiences of breastfeeding. We undertook a secondary analysis of 24 women's interviews; all the women had a strong antenatal intention to breastfeed and were expecting their first baby. The interviews were collected during the UK-based Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA) feasibility trial when their infant was aged between 4 and 21 weeks. Categorical content analysis was used to explore the interrelationships between key factors and to identify different infant feeding typologies. Two different typologies emerged: "disappointed" (n = 7) and "by hook or by crook" (n = 17). "Disappointed" women had stopped breastfeeding early; women classified as "by hook or by crook" continued breastfeeding despite facing challenges. Sociodemographic, social, and service level differences between the typologies were noted. "Disappointed" women were more likely to be younger, White-British, to have considered mixed-feeding antenatally and experienced negative breastfeeding support from healthcare professionals and personal networks. Infants of "disappointed" women were more likely to have received unexpected "top-ups" and to be perceived as having infant feeding difficulties. Women classified as "by hook or by crook" were just as likely as "disappointed" women to experience birth-related complications, but demonstrated more proactive help-seeking behaviors, had positive experiences of personal/professional support and accessed wider support. While further research is needed to consolidate and/or refute the typologies, the ecological approach shifts the focus away from mothers' decisions to consider the multi-level factors that need to be in place to enable women to breastfeed successfully. Further work to encourage help-seeking behaviors and toward improving facilities, support, and services is needed.

Non-profit breastfeeding organisations' peer support provision in areas of socio-economic deprivation in the UK: A meta-ethnography

In many high-income countries such as the United Kingdom, inequalities in breastfeeding initiation and continuation rates exist, whereby socio-economically advantaged mothers are most likely to breastfeed. Breastfeeding peer support interventions are recommended to address this inequality, with non-profit breastfeeding organisations providing such support in areas of deprivation. As these organisations' roots and membership are often formed of relatively highly resourced women who have different backgrounds and experiences to those living in areas of deprivation, it is important to understand their practices in this context. In order to explore how UK non-profit organisations practice breastfeeding peer support in areas of socio-economic deprivation, a systematic review and meta-ethnography of published and grey literature was undertaken. Sixteen texts were included, and three core themes constructed: (1) 'changing communities' reveals practices designed to generate community level change, and (2) 'enabling one to one support', explains how proactive working practices enabled individual mothers' access to supportive environments. (3) 'forging partnerships with health professionals', describes how embedding peer support within local health services facilitated peer supporters' access to mothers. While few breastfeeding peer support practices were directly linked to the context of socio-economic deprivation, those described sought to influence community and individual level change. They illuminate the importance of interprofessional working. Further work to consolidate the peer-professional interface to ensure needs-led care is required.