|
|
By Lisa Lactivist, on October 17th, 2011
Conwy Breastfeeding Friends could win up to £6000 if they get the most votes for our area and then there are two runners up who get a bit too. They might get into the top three if they can get another 30/40+ votes. The site has had some loading problems, please don’t let that put you off!
Conwy Breastfeeding Friends has been set up the Aberconwy NCT. They really do want to make a difference by helping mum’s in need of support and guidance.
What does your charity/project do?
Aberconwy & Colwyn NCT is a local branch of a charity that supports parents and parents to be with trusted impartial information, antenatal support, nearly new sales, peer support and social activities to help people engage with their community on their journey through parenthood. The breastfeeding peer support project was initiated to aid mothers who were unable to get the help they needed when they needed it most. It is our first step in providing more targeted postnatal services locally.
How does your charity/project support the local community?
Feedback from local parents indicated a need for more breastfeeding advice with practical, accessible antenatal and postnatal support. With North Wales NHS budget cuts and maternity service reviews, this kind of support is increasingly unavailable. Supporting initiation and continuation rates has been proven to have a positive impact on maternal health & wellbeing, while also helping to support good child nutrition and healthy lifestyles – peer support can play a huge role in empowering parents.
What do you plan to use the CommunityForce award for?
The award would ensure that a rolling programme of volunteer training could be established in the county. We try to ensure that the training is accessible to all by providing resources, teaching aids, information sheets and a regular meeting/drop-in space for volunteers at no cost to them. The funds would be invaluable for this and also for helping with the cost of promotional items for the volunteer service, so we can reach even more parents throughout the region.
By Lisa Lactivist, on October 13th, 2011 The Royal Bank of Scotland made a commitment to help the communities in which we live and work. The result is CommunityForce – a platform that empowers local projects and charities to raise awareness of their work and make their plans a reality with the support of RBS and their local community.
The Breastfeeding Network have put in an application to help them support more breastfeeding parents in Ayrshire. They have been doing this for the last 8 years and are making a huge impact. The money would mean a great deal to them and to parents in Ayrshire.
They need your votes!
Please visit http://communityforce.rbs.co.uk/project/879 to vote for them, it doesn’t take that long but you do have to register.
As an incentive to vote I am offering a prize from Lactivist !
You can win anything you like from www.lactivist.co.uk by
a) voting for the Breastfeeding Network
b) putting your name on the list on http://www.lactivist.net/?p=3602
The winner will be chosen at random after voting closes on the 24th October 2011.
Entries from Europe only please.
The winner was Rebecca Stothard who has been emailed – thanks for voting everyone and good luck!
By Lisa Lactivist, on September 23rd, 2011
11:00am Sunday 18th September 2011
”A TIVERTON company has received £6,685 of Lottery funding to help support its training for women volunteers to become breastfeeding practitioners at children’s centres.
Healthy Babies Community Interest Company was one of 56 groups in the South-West to share a £411,005 Lottery pot.
The money will help qualify participants to train more volunteers and teach expectant and new mothers at anti-natal classes and groups.
Mark Cotton, Big Lottery Fund head of region for the South-West, said: “Awards for All offers small grants that can have a big impact on people of all ages and backgrounds.”
From the http://www.middevonstar.co.uk/news/9255860.Lottery_funding_for_Healthy_Babies/
The group has a website – www.healthy-babies-uk.org which lists the course and clinics in the Tiverton area so if you are local and interested in peer support please get in touch with them.
By Lisa Lactivist, on May 26th, 2011  I found this on the NHS website – http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CMS2Web/ShowRecord.asp?View=Full&ID=21997000575
The full research is below but these are 2 important snippets:
Mean, unadjusted total Medicaid expenditures for infants in the breast feeding cohort were approximately $102 less than for infants in the formula-feeding cohort ($484.80 +/- 964.14versus $586.67 +/-1,222.36, not statistically significant). Mean pharmacy payments, a subcategory of total Medicaid expenditures, were significantly lower for the breast-fed cohort than for the formula fed cohort ($16.83 and $37.56 respectively, p<0.0001). Compared with the formula-feeding cohort, adjusted pharmacy payments for the breast-feeding cohort were $29.82 (95% CI: $21.14 – $38.50) lower for males and $12.16(95% CI: $5.90 – $18.41) lower for females.
The average formula-fed infant required 21% more Medicaid expenditures and the infant-mother pair required 14% to 19% more WIC dollars than the average breast-fed infant-mother pair.
Authors’ conclusions
The study results show that breast-feeding reduces WIC costs and Medicaid expenditures in the short term, so examination of a longer time period may reveal greater savings. In order to achieve valid conclusions, it is important to consider the problem of incomplete Medicaid expenditure data and breast-feeding infants receiving care from providers who use revenue billing codes (which tends to result in a higher level of payment). The lower pharmacy costs associated with breast-fed children could mean a substantial saving for the Medicaid programme if more low-income mothers chose to breast-feed their infants.
The authors argued that the breast-feeding method produced a net month saving of $9.83, which, applied to the 17.5% of Colorado WIC infants breast-fed for 6 months, can lead to a saving of $25,803 per month. In addition to producing monetary benefits, breast-feeding produces intangible benefits for the mother and infant, as well for society.
So why is the UK government scrapping Breastfeeding Awareness Week?
Please sign the petition to get the funding back – http://www.petitiononline.com/fundBFAW/petition.html
| Economic benefit of breast-feeding infants enrolled in WIC |
| Montgomery D L, Splett P L |
|
|
|
|
Health technology
Breast-feeding versus formula feeding in infants.
Type of intervention
Breastfeeding; Primary prevention.
Hypothesis/study question
The general objective of the study was to determine whether, within a low-income population served by WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children), breast feeding is associated with a reduction in Medicaid expenditures during the first 6 months of life. Formula feeding was explicitly stated asa comparator.
Economic study type
Cost-effectiveness analysis.
Study population
Breast-fed and formula-fed infants. The average age of mothers was 25 for the breast-feeding and 22.2 for the formula-feeding group, (p<0.001). The two groups were comparable in terms of education background. 70% of the breast-feeding group were white women and 55.7% of the formula-feeding group ,(p<0.001). The women in the breast feeding group had a higher rate of employment (43.1% versus 32.3%, p<0.001) and were less likely to smoke (13.7% versus 26.2%, p<0.001).
Setting
Community. The economic study was carried out in Colorado, USA.
Dates to which data relate
The resources were measured using data for the period 1 August 1993 – 31 December 1993. 1993-1994 prices were used.
Source of effectiveness data
Effectiveness data were derived from a single study.
Link between effectiveness and cost data
The costing was undertaken retrospectively on the same patient sample as that used in the effectiveness study.
Study sample
Using the Colorado WIC database, infants were identified as possible subjects if they were: (a) born between August 1, 1993, and December 31, 1993; (b) enrolled in WIC within 1 month of birth; (c) either formula-fed exclusively or breast-fed exclusively for at least the first 3 months of life; and (d) classified as a normal, singleton birth (born after 37 weeks of gestation with a birth weight above 2,500 g and born without any severe medical conditions).
Breast-fed infants were further identified as to duration of exclusive breast-feeding (3, 4, 5 or 6 months of exclusive breast-feeding) based on redemption of WIC wouchers for infant formula. It is not evident that the initial study sample was appropriate for the clinical study question;it was not reported whether power calculations were used to determine the sample size.
The breast-feeding cohort and the formula-feeding cohort consisted of 406 and 470 infants respectively. Infants were excluded if (a) birth certificate or Medicaid records indicated congenital anomaly, or less than 37 weeks of gestation; (b) the Medicaid record indicated that medical services were provided by a health maintenance organization or a federally qualified health centre (where Medicaid payments for services were not related to intensity of service provided);or (c) Medicaid records indicated other third-party reimbursement for any medical service during the study period.
Study design
Single centre cohort study. The cohorts were identified and tracked prospectively for 6 months. No information about loss to follow up was reported.
Analysis of effectiveness
Effectiveness results
The effectiveness results were not explicitly reported.
Clinical conclusions
The study considers that breast feeding is at least as effective as formula feeding in terms of health benefits for infants.
Measure of benefits used in the economic analysis
Since the authors assumed that there was no difference in effectiveness or clinical benefit between the intervention and comparator, the economic analysis was based on the difference in costs only (cost-minimization) plus a benefit to cost ratio calculation.
Direct costs
Discounting was not applied due to the short period of the study (<1 year). Costs and quantities were not reported separately. The type of costs included in the study were as follows: the food costs for the women and infants in the two groups plus the administrative expenses for 6 months, minus manufacturers’ rebates for formula, plus Medicaid expenditures for health care initiated in the first 6 months of each infant’s life for: procedure, revenue, diagnosis-related-group, non-diagnosis-related-group and pharmacy. The quantity/cost boundary adopted was the health service. The estimation of quantities and costs was based on actual data. The source of quantity/cost data was the Colorado WIC database and the Medicaid records. The dates of the price data were 1993-1994.
Statistical analysis of costs
WIC costs and Medicaid expenditures were summed for each mother-infant pair and compared between the cohorts by means of t tests and analysis of covariance. Regression techniques were used to estimate total Medicaid expenditures for each feeding method when adjusted for other variables. The sex of the infant and number of prenatal visits were found to contribute significantly to total Medicaid expenditures. Analysis of covariance was used to estimate the total difference in Medicaid expenditures between the breast-fed and formula-fed cohorts, adjusted for sex of the infant and number of prenatal visits.
Indirect Costs
Currency
Sensitivity analysis
A simple sensitivity analysis was carried out on administrative costs.
Estimated benefits used in the economic analysis
Cost results
The 6 months food cost was $299 lower for breast-feeding mother-infant pairs than for the formula-fed cohort ($269 versus $568, p<0.0001). With the addition of a 26% administrative cost adjustment, 6 months food cost remained less for the breast-fed cohort than for the formula-fed cohort, $339 versus $715. The 6 months, post-rebate (manufacturer’s rebate) WIC food cost for the formula-feeding cohort, before adjusting for the programme’s administrative cost, was $18.63 less than the food package cost for the breast-feeding cohort. When administrative costs were added to food package cost (calculated with 26% administrative cost of pre-rebate food package), the food cost of the formula-feeding cohort was higher by $59 than that of the breast-feeding cohort. Mean, unadjusted total Medicaid expenditures for infants in the breast feeding cohort were approximately $102 less than for infants in the formula-feeding cohort ($484.80 +/- 964.14versus $586.67 +/-1,222.36, not statistically significant). Mean pharmacy payments, a subcategory of total Medicaid expenditures, were significantly lower for the breast-fed cohort than for the formula fed cohort ($16.83 and $37.56 respectively, p<0.0001). Compared with the formula-feeding cohort, adjusted pharmacy payments for the breast-feeding cohort were $29.82 (95% CI: $21.14 – $38.50) lower for males and $12.16(95% CI: $5.90 – $18.41) lower for females.
Synthesis of costs and benefits
A benefit-cost ratio was calculated. The benefits (Medicare expenditures) were divided by the (WIC) costs of the programmes to produce a ratio score which showed the monetary value of outcomes produced with each dollar of input. Post-rebate breast-fed cohort ratios ranged from 1.02 to 1.73 compared with ratios of 1.59 to 1.75 for the formula-fed cohort. These results do not, however, reflect the finding that both Medicaid and post-rebate WIC costs were higher for the formula-fed alternative. The average formula-fed infant required 21% more Medicaid expenditures and the infant-mother pair required 14% to 19% more WIC dollars than the average breast-fed infant-mother pair.
Authors’ conclusions
The study results show that breast-feeding reduces WIC costs and Medicaid expenditures in the short term, so examination of a longer time period may reveal greater savings. In order to achieve valid conclusions, it is important to consider the problem of incomplete Medicaid expenditure data and breast-feeding infants receiving care from providers who use revenue billing codes (which tends to result in a higher level of payment). The lower pharmacy costs associated with breast-fed children could mean a substantial saving for the Medicaid programme if more low-income mothers chose to breast-feed their infants.
The authors argued that the breast-feeding method produced a net month saving of $9.83, which, applied to the 17.5% of Colorado WIC infants breast-fed for 6 months, can lead to a saving of $25,803 per month. In addition to producing monetary benefits, breast-feeding produces intangible benefits for the mother and infant, as well for society.
CRD COMMENTARY – Selection of comparators
The reason for the choice of comparator is clear.
Validity of estimate of measure of benefit
The health benefits of the intervention and the comparator were not explicitly analysed. As such, the authors conducted an economic evaluation which had some characteristics of cost-benefit analysis (e.g. benefit/cost ratio, net benefit)and others which resembled cost-minimization analysis. However, in terms of cost-benefit analysis, health benefits were not explicitly analysed but, rather, the conversion from health outcomes to dollar values was represented in Medicaid expenditures alone. In terms of cost-minimization, the authors did not adequately demonstrate that the effectiveness of breast-feeding was identical to formula-feeding. However, the results suggest additional benefit for breast-fed infants.
Validity of estimate of costs
Resource quantities were not reported separately from the prices, but adequate details of methods of quantity/cost estimation were given. All the important cost items were included.
Other issues
The results of the study need to be validated, for example with a cohort study which employs a longer period of follow up using appropriate methods to assess differences in the health outcomes of the two populations.
Implications of the study
The study supports the view that the breast feeding of infants is associated with both health and economic benefits.
Source of funding
Supported in part by grants from The American Dietetic Association Research Foundation and the Colorado Breastfeeding Task Force.
Bibliographic details
Montgomery D L, Splett P L. Economic benefit of breast-feeding infants enrolled in WIC. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1997 97(4):379-385
PubMedID
Other publications of related interest
Comment in: Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1997;97(4):385.
Indexing Status
Subject indexing assigned by NLM
MeSH
Adult; Bottle Feeding /economics; Breast Feeding; Cohort Studies; Cost Control; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Food Services /economics; Humans; Infant Food /economics; Infant, Newborn; Medicaid /economics /utilization; Prospective Studies; United States
AccessionNumber
21997000575
Database entry date
31/07/1999
Record Status
This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets the criteria for inclusion on NHS EED. Each abstract contains a brief summary of the methods, the results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the study and the conclusions drawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By Lisa Lactivist, on May 22nd, 2011 This is an article in the Independant on Sunday.
Please take a moment to sign the petition asking 10 Downing Street to bring back funding for Breastfeeding Awareness Week
http://www.petitiononline.com/fundBFAW/petition.html
Critics say move may undo years of work, just as message on benefits of mothers’ milk gets through
By Susie Mesure
 pa
The benefits to babies of breastfeeding are unequivocal, according to campaigners
“Breast is best” is the simple message healthcare providers like to drum into new mothers’ exhausted brains. Their jobs will get a little harder this year after the Government controversially axed its support for National Breastfeeding Week, which was due to run next month.
Campaigners last night warned that the move, which will save just a few hundred thousand pounds, risked undoing years of good work just at a time when the message on the benefits of breast milk were starting to get through.
The decision means there will be no UK-wide campaign to remind parents that breastfeeding is the easiest way to give your baby a head start. The latest research, released earlier this month, revealed that breastfed babies are less likely to have behavioural problems by the age of five than those given formula milk.
The Royal College of Midwives (RCM) said it was “disappointed” by the U-turn, which increases pressure on local support groups to step in instead. Janet Fyle, the RCM’s professional policy adviser, said a national campaign “galvanises everybody, from professionals to mother-to-mother groups”. She warned: “It is not cost effective to drop something with which you have had some success. The Government needs to look at all the very good work that it has done to generate interest in breastfeeding, and the help that support groups have received.”
Belinda Phipps, chief executive of the National Childbirth Trust, a charity that supports new mothers, called the Government’s move “frustrating”. She said mums wanted to breastfeed but often found they struggled because they lacked support. She called for “better training” for midwives and more support for organisations such as the NCT, which has its own training scheme for breastfeeding counsellors.
“The evidence of the health benefits of breastfeeding is unequivocal. But as a society we have a funny attitude towards breastfeeding because breasts are used for sex, so I can see why [promoting breastfeeding] is not a total win-win for government,” Ms Phipps added.
Although the latest infant feeding survey, due out shortly, is expected to show a slight increase in the numbers of women breastfeeding, it remains a contentious issue. World Health Organization recommendations state that mothers should exclusively breastfeed their babies until they are six months old, but existing figures show that barely a third of British babies are exclusively breastfed at one week and just a fifth at six weeks. By the time babies are four months old, the figures plunge to 7 per cent, giving the UK one of the worst breastfeeding records in the developed world.
Campaigns have featured the likes of Nell McAndrew, the glamour model, who breastfed her son well into toddlerhood. The year that McAndrew fronted National Breastfeeding Week, a third of mothers from C2DE backgrounds said that seeing her extol the virtues of breast milk had made them think more positively about it.
The Department of Health yesterday defended its decision. A spokesperson said it valued work being done by other organisations to promote breastfeeding, adding: “During this transition phase, we will be considering how infant nutrition will be delivered to support better health outcomes.”
Among those stepping into the breach is the retailer Mothercare, which intends to team up with the RCM to host in-store advice clinics for new mothers during what would have been National Breastfeeding Week, from 19 to 25 June. The NCT will also be running special events.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/campaigners-livid-as-whitehall-axes-breastfeeding-week-2287445.html
By Lisa Lactivist, on May 7th, 2011 This excellent article about the importance of funding to help people become aware of the huge benefits of breastfeeding is copied onto www.lactivist.net with permission from the writer Anna Cahalin and also from the Real Parenting Blog where it was first published.
5 May 2011
 Anna Cahalin
National Breastfeeding Awareness Week 2011, which was due to run from 19 – 25th June, has had its government funding withdrawn. This announcement was made on 7th April on the NHS Local website, but seemed to have escaped the attention of the national press; a quick search of both the top four broadsheets and red-tops brought back zero results for this story.
It is understandable that the government don’t want this too widely publicised. Not only have huge funding cuts been made resulting in the loss of potentially hundreds of Sure Start centres across the UK, which consequently means the demise of the breastfeeding support groups run by these centres, but now they no longer wish to invest money in raising awareness of the importance of breastfeeding.
It is universally acknowledged that breastfeeding provides babies with the best start in life. The World Health Organisation states that “Virtually all mothers can breastfeed, provided they have accurate information, and the support of their family, the health care system and society at large”. This message, however, does not always reach those in more deprived areas, or those who are less educated, or young mothers*.
This was entirely the point of the establishment of Sure Start centres; that the disadvantaged and less-educated families would be provided with access to support groups and classes, ensuring their children had an opportunity to grow up “healthier and more ready to learn, [with] stronger families and communities, less crime and fewer school-age pregnancies”.
Those families without access to the internet or the media or other literature will not be made aware of how important breastfeeding is if this message is not continually broadcast across all communities.
Although the Department of Health spokesperson stated that, “support and information is currently available to health professionals and parents via NHS Choices, the National Breastfeeding Helpline, UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative and the peer support programmes”, the continuous cuts in government funding regarding parenting and child health can only lead to a larger divide between the classes, leaving the more disadvantaged families unable to easily access information and support.
The promotion of breastfeeding surely deserves some funding? The Lactivist certainly thinks so, and if you do too, they have set up an online petition which you can access here to convince the government to continue funding National Breastfeeding Awareness Week. 100, 000 or more signatures will see this topic brought to debate in parliament, so if you feel strongly that these cuts are wrong, get signing!
* Foster K, Lader D, Cheesbrough S. Infant feeding 1995. 1997, Office for National Statistics: The Stationery Office: London. I would just like to make the point that although the evidence for the WHO statement is now over ten years old, a study published in the British Medical Journal in 2009 also states that “breastfeeding has well known advantages for mothers and children, yet its rates are lower than recommended”, proving that little has changed in the last decade.
If you need help with breastfeeding, here are Ten breastfeeding resources on the web
Anna is a first-time mum to her 8 month old daughter, Ella, a Diagnostic Radiographer with a degree in English and a brief background in PR, trying to set up as a freelance writer. Anna blogs at dummymummy.
|
|
|
Care Instructions – Shopping Bag 
Any Old Cow – Shopping Bag 
Mummy Milk Rocks – Shopping Bag 
“Any old Cow” Short Sleeved T 3-6 months 
“Any old Cow” Short Sleeved T 6-12 months 
Recent Comments