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

Overview

Journal BMJ Open

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2023 Jun 8

PMID 37290948

Authors

Fiona E McLardie-Hore

Della A Forster

H L McLachlan

Touran Shafiei

Lisa H Amir

Mary-Ann Davey

Heather Grimes

Lisa Gold

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Use of volunteers in early years interventions for parents: A scoping review of roles and the extent of evaluation research in this area.

Padgett L, Blower S, Henderson H, Bryant M PLoS One. 2024; 19(9):e0305551.

PMID: 39325752 PMC: 11426509. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305551.

Mothers' experiences and perceptions of breastfeeding peer support: a qualitative systematic review.

Yang Y, Liu H, Cui X, Meng J Int Breastfeed J. 2024; 19(1):7.

PMID: 38243287 PMC: 10797811. DOI: 10.1186/s13006-024-00614-3.

References

Grimes H, McLachlan H, Forster D, McLardie-Hore F, Mortensen K, Shafiei T . Implementing a successful proactive telephone breastfeeding peer support intervention: volunteer recruitment, training, and intervention delivery in the RUBY randomised controlled trial. Int Breastfeed J. 2021; 16(1):90. PMC: 8638340. DOI: 10.1186/s13006-021-00434-9. View

Rice S, Craig D, McCormick F, Renfrew M, Williams A . Economic evaluation of enhanced staff contact for the promotion of breastfeeding for low birth weight infants. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010; 26(2):133-40. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462310000115. View

Horta B, Loret de Mola C, Victora C . Breastfeeding and intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Paediatr. 2015; 104(467):14-9. DOI: 10.1111/apa.13139. View

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

Anokye N, Coyle K, Relton C, Walters S, Strong M, Fox-Rushby J . Cost-effectiveness of offering an area-level financial incentive on breast feeding: a within-cluster randomised controlled trial analysis. Arch Dis Child. 2019; 105(2):155-159. PMC: 7025724. DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2018-316741. View

Rubio-Rodriguez D . [Economic analysis of specialised and intensive promotion of breastfeeding in neonatal units in Spain]. An Pediatr (Barc). 2012; 77(5):297-308. DOI: 10.1016/j.anpedi.2012.03.015. View

Da Vanzo J, Starbird E, Leibowitz A . Do women's breastfeeding experiences with their first-borns affect whether they breastfeed their subsequent children?. Soc Biol. 1990; 37(3-4):223-32. DOI: 10.1080/19485565.1990.9988762. View

Camacho E, Hussain H . Cost-effectiveness evidence for strategies to promote or support breastfeeding: a systematic search and narrative literature review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20(1):757. PMC: 7712610. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-03460-3. View

Kramer M, Aboud F, Mironova E, Vanilovich I, Platt R, Matush L . Breastfeeding and child cognitive development: new evidence from a large randomized trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008; 65(5):578-84. DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.65.5.578. View

10.

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

11.

Forster D, McLardie-Hore F, McLachlan H, Davey M, Grimes H, Dennis C . Proactive Peer (Mother-to-Mother) Breastfeeding Support by Telephone (Ringing up About Breastfeeding Early [RUBY]): A Multicentre, Unblinded, Randomised Controlled Trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2019; 8:20-28. PMC: 6537529. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.02.003. View

12.

Karlsson J, Garnett T, Rollins N, Roos E . The carbon footprint of breastmilk substitutes in comparison with breastfeeding. J Clean Prod. 2019; 222:436-445. PMC: 6472111. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.043. View

13.

Rollins N, Bhandari N, Hajeebhoy N, Horton S, Lutter C, Martines J . Why invest, and what it will take to improve breastfeeding practices?. Lancet. 2016; 387(10017):491-504. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01044-2. View

14.

Netzer-Tomkins H, Rubin L, Ephros M . Breastfeeding Is Associated with Decreased Hospitalization for Neonatal Fever. Breastfeed Med. 2016; 11:218-21. DOI: 10.1089/bfm.2016.0007. View

15.

Sokol R, Fisher E . Peer Support for the Hardly Reached: A Systematic Review. Am J Public Health. 2016; 106(7):e1-8. PMC: 4984766. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303180. View

16.

Chowdhury R, Sinha B, Sankar M, Taneja S, Bhandari N, Rollins N . Breastfeeding and maternal health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Paediatr. 2015; 104(467):96-113. PMC: 4670483. DOI: 10.1111/apa.13102. View

17.

Walters D, Phan L, Mathisen R . The cost of not breastfeeding: global results from a new tool. Health Policy Plan. 2019; 34(6):407-417. PMC: 6735804. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czz050. View

18.

Ingram J . A mixed methods evaluation of peer support in Bristol, UK: mothers', midwives' and peer supporters' views and the effects on breastfeeding. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13:192. PMC: 3854768. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-192. View

19.

Forster D, McLachlan H, Davey M, Amir L, Gold L, Small R . Ringing Up about Breastfeeding: a randomised controlled trial exploring early telephone peer support for breastfeeding (RUBY) - trial protocol. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14:177. PMC: 4068322. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-177. View

20.

Gavine A, Shinwell S, Buchanan P, Farre A, Wade A, Lynn F . Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022; 10:CD001141. PMC: 9595242. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001141.pub6. View