» Articles » PMID: 33272225

Cost-effectiveness Evidence for Strategies to Promote or Support Breastfeeding: a Systematic Search and Narrative Literature Review

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2020 Dec 4
PMID 33272225
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Development of a breastfeeding co-parenting intervention program for couples with primiparas: a program development process study.

Xie T, Huang Y, Huang W BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024; 24(1):590.

PMID: 39251971 PMC: 11385832. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-06750-2.


Importance Assigned to Breastfeeding by Spanish Pregnant Women and Associated Factors: A Survey-Based Multivariate Linear Correlation Study.

Arnedillo-Sanchez S, Suffo-Abouza J, Carmona-Rodriguez M, Morilla-Romero-de-la-Osa R, Arnedillo-Sanchez I Nutrients. 2024; 16(13).

PMID: 38999864 PMC: 11242974. DOI: 10.3390/nu16132116.


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.

McLardie-Hore F, Forster D, McLachlan H, Shafiei T, Amir L, Davey M BMJ Open. 2023; 13(6):e067049.

PMID: 37290948 PMC: 10254963. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067049.


How much does it cost to implement the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative training step in the United States and Mexico?.

Arslanian K, Vilar-Compte M, Teruel G, Lozano-Marrufo A, Rhodes E, Hromi-Fiedler A PLoS One. 2022; 17(9):e0273179.

PMID: 36170264 PMC: 9518892. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273179.


Correlates of Sub-Optimal Feeding Practices among under-5 Children amid Escalating Crises in Lebanon: A National Representative Cross-Sectional Study.

Hoteit M, Ibrahim C, Saadeh D, Al-Jaafari M, Atwi M, AlAsmar S Children (Basel). 2022; 9(6).

PMID: 35740754 PMC: 9221782. DOI: 10.3390/children9060817.


References
1.
Renfrew M, Craig D, Dyson L, McCormick F, Rice S, King S . Breastfeeding promotion for infants in neonatal units: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2009; 13(40):1-146, iii-iv. DOI: 10.3310/hta13400. View

2.
Desmond C, Bland R, Boyce G, Coovadia H, Coutsoudis A, Rollins N . Scaling-up exclusive breastfeeding support programmes: the example of KwaZulu-Natal. PLoS One. 2008; 3(6):e2454. PMC: 2413404. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002454. View

3.
Morgan H, Hoddinott P, Thomson G, Crossland N, Farrar S, Yi D . Benefits of Incentives for Breastfeeding and Smoking cessation in pregnancy (BIBS): a mixed-methods study to inform trial design. Health Technol Assess. 2015; 19(30):1-522, vii-viii. PMC: 4780978. DOI: 10.3310/hta19300. View

4.
Carr S, Lhussier M, Forster N, Geddes L, Deane K, Pennington M . An evidence synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research on component intervention techniques, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, equity and acceptability of different versions of health-related lifestyle advisor role in improving health. Health Technol Assess. 2011; 15(9):iii-iv, 1-284. PMC: 4781312. DOI: 10.3310/hta15090. View

5.
McFadden A, Gavine A, Renfrew M, Wade A, Buchanan P, Taylor J . Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 2:CD001141. PMC: 6464485. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001141.pub5. View