ISSN / EISSN: 15568253 / 15568342
Published by: Mary Ann Liebert Inc
Total articles ≅ 1,985
Latest articles in this journal
Breastfeeding Medicine; https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2022.0225
Background: Breastfeeding rates have stagnated recently despite recommendations to breastfeed until age 2 years. Antenatal breast milk expression (ABME) is a method used to prepare the breast for breastfeeding. However, there is limited evidence available on the benefits, risks, and impact of ABME on maternal–infant breastfeeding dyads. Methods: This review identified and summarized studies on women who engaged in ABME and their personal experiences. Databases searched included PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and EMBASE. Initially, abstracts and titles were reviewed, and then, full-text studies were screened for inclusion by two blinded authors. Two authors assessed the quality of the studies using a standardized tool, two authors completed data extraction, and one author completed data harmonization into tables. Results: A total of 1,410 studies were identified (after duplicates removed) and 10 citations qualified for the inclusion criteria. Only two studies received an overall rating of strong quality and low-risk bias. The selected articles varied in primary outcomes; however, main focuses were experiences, knowledge, and perspective after practicing ABME. Data varied on timing of ABME, but most studies started between 34 and 36 weeks. The average amount of expressed milk was reported in four studies but was variable. Conclusions: This systematic review found that the literature is limited regarding ABME, and most studies were focused on women with diabetes. The current limited evidence suggests that ABME may be a helpful tool in improving maternal breastfeeding confidence and breastfeeding outcomes. Negative side effects reported related to ABME included difficulty learning the technique, discomfort, and feeling of awkwardness while expressing. Future research should focus on higher quality studies regarding use of ABME, proper teaching of ABME technique, and the use of ABME to improve breastfeeding outcomes in diverse populations of maternal–infant dyads.
Breastfeeding Medicine; https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2022.0277
Breakthrough bleeding is a side effect of progesterone-only pills (POPs) in 40% of women, and is reduced to 10% with combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs). In addition, breakthrough bleeding is reduced if POP is supplemented with norethisterone. As breakthrough bleeding is responsible for a quarter of women stopping the pill, it is vital to realize that CHC is an alternative to POP—even during lactation. CHCs are considered safe during lactation, do not reduce milk production, nor impede infant development. Nevertheless, CHCs are often not prescribed for lactating mothers due to this misconception that they reduce milk production. Among Orthodox Jews, breakthrough bleeding frequently results in stopping POP, as Jewish religious law prohibits any physical contact of the mother with her partner during active bleeding, and for 7 days after bleeding. When such bleeding occurs, not choosing a CHC alternative, results in couples risking discontinuation of POP, and in conceiving within a year of the previous birth, with its increased risk of preterm labor and birth defects. To measure how physicians respond to the presumed dilemma of balancing the risk of breakthrough bleeding versus the concern of reduction of milk production, we conducted a preliminary online survey. Physicians were asked if they would prescribe CHC instead of POP to breastfeeding mothers, 3 months postpartum with breakthrough bleeding. Half of the physicians responded they would prescribe CHC, whereas close to half of the physicians responded that they would not. The main reasons given by the respondents for avoiding CHC was a concern regarding possible milk reduction. These results confirm a significant degree of a lack of updated pharmacological information regarding the options of oral contraceptive use for lactating mothers, particularly for those where breakthrough bleeding has major behavioral and religious consequences. Thus, we contend that the risk of breakthrough bleeding justifies the more routine use of CHC in lieu of POP in lactating mothers.
Breastfeeding Medicine; https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2022.0243
Background: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with substance use later in life, including marijuana use. It is unknown whether these behaviors extend to lactating women. Our objective was to examine the association between childhood ACE and marijuana use in lactating individuals and determine whether positive childhood experiences (PCEs) modified this association. Methods: This study included 617 lactating individuals from the UC San Diego Human Milk Research Biorepository enrolled from 2015 to 2020. ACE and PCE histories were assessed by the Positive and Adverse Childhood Experiences questionnaire. Past 2-week marijuana use was self-reported at enrollment. Multivariable log-linear regressions were used to calculate adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ACE history and marijuana use, and to assess modification by PCE. Results: Marijuana use during lactation was higher among individuals who reported three or more ACEs (aRR = 2.58, 95% CI = 1.23–5.44), household dysfunction (aRR = 3.08, 95% CI = 1.17–8.10), sexual abuse (aRR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.08–4.68), or physical abuse (aRR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.02–4.13). There was no association between emotional abuse and marijuana use during lactation. There was no effect modification by PCEs. Conclusion: Higher ACE frequency, and specifically history of household dysfunction, physical abuse, or sexual abuse increased risk for marijuana use during lactation. Because of marijuana's potential adverse effects on the infant through human milk, postpartum ACE screening is warranted.
Breastfeeding Medicine; https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2022.0207
Background: Donor milk banks have strict donor screening criteria to ensure that donor milk is safe for premature or hospitalized babies. Yet little evidence is available to understand how potential donors, who are often breastfeeding their own infants, experience being ineligible (“deferred”) to donate their milk to a milk bank. Materials and Methods: Interviews were conducted with 10 mothers who were permanently or temporarily deferred from donating to a large, not-for-profit milk bank in Australia. Interviews focused on becoming a donor and being deferred, meanings of deferral, impact of deferral on feeding own infant, and improving the deferral process. Results: Thematic analysis of interviews identified nine themes: (1) donation as a solution to wasting milk; (2) eligibility questions were acceptable and understandable; (3) more information early on allows self-deferral; (4) deferral is not always clear; (5) deferral is disappointing but does not prevent future donation; (6) deferral did not prevent feeding own infant; (7) early information enables preparation for donation; (8) slow communication disrupts perfect timing to donate; and (9) alternatives to wasting milk. Conclusions: Milk banks have a duty of care to both milk recipients and donors. While mothers who want to donate milk are disappointed by deferrals, clear communication protects their breastfeeding relationships with their own infants. Milk banks can improve their screening processes by providing information up-front and ensuring timely contact with mothers. Mothers can then make informed decisions about donating and not feel as if their milk and resources are “wasted.”
Breastfeeding Medicine; https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2022.0275
Breastfeeding Medicine; https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2022.0291
Breastfeeding Medicine; https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2022.0151
Background: While breast milk is widely accepted as the best source of nutrients for almost all newborns, breastfeeding can be especially challenging for preterm and low birth weight (LBW) infants. With increased risk of admission to neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and separation from parents, this population experiences significant barriers to successful breastfeeding. Thus, it is crucial to identify interventions that can optimize breastfeeding for preterm and LBW infants that is continued from birth and admission, through to hospital discharge and beyond. Objectives: To identify and analyze evidence-based interventions that promote any and exclusive breastfeeding among preterm and LBW neonates at discharge and/or postdischarge from hospital. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Searches were performed in the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL). Results: From the 42 studies included, 6 groups of intervention types were identified: educational and breastfeeding support programs, early discharge, oral stimulation, artificial teats and cups, kangaroo mother care (KMC), and supportive policies within NICUs. All groupings of interventions were associated with significantly increased rates of any breastfeeding at discharge. All types of interventions except artificial teats/cups and oral stimulation showed statistically significant increases in exclusive breastfeeding at discharge. KMC demonstrated the highest increased odds of breastfeeding at discharge among preterm and LBW infants. Conclusions: A variety of effective interventions exist to promote breastfeeding among hospitalized preterm and LBW infants. Hospital settings hold unique opportunities for successful breastfeeding promotion. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021252610
Breastfeeding Medicine, Volume 18, pp 78-78; https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2022.29232.alk
Breastfeeding Medicine, Volume 18, pp 80-80; https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2022.0105.correx