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

Anna Gavine, Albert Farre, Fiona Lynn, Shona Shinwell, Phyllis Buchanan, Joyce Marshall, Sara Cumming, Louise Wallace, Angie Wade, Elayne Ahern, Laura Hay, Marianne Cranwell, Alison McFadden
{"title":"Lessons for the UK on implementation and evaluation of breastfeeding support: evidence syntheses and stakeholder engagement.","authors":"Anna Gavine, Albert Farre, Fiona Lynn, Shona Shinwell, Phyllis Buchanan, Joyce Marshall, Sara Cumming, Louise Wallace, Angie Wade, Elayne Ahern, Laura Hay, Marianne Cranwell, Alison McFadden","doi":"10.3310/DGTP5702","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To synthesise global and UK evidence to co-create an implementation and evaluation toolkit for cost-effective breastfeeding support in the NHS.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Evidence syntheses with stakeholder engagement.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>'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.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>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/).</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 20","pages":"1-206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/DGTP5702","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

英国在实施和评估母乳喂养支持方面的经验教训:证据综述和利益相关者参与。
背景:母乳喂养对多种健康结果都有积极影响,但在英国,母乳喂养 8 周的妇女不足 50%。患有长期疾病的妇女在母乳喂养方面面临更多挑战:综合全球和英国的证据,共同创建一个实施和评估工具包,为英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)提供具有成本效益的母乳喂养支持:设计:有利益相关者参与的证据综述:采用 Cochrane 怀孕与分娩小组的方法,对(1)健康妇女和(2)患有长期疾病的妇女的母乳喂养支持效果进行了系统综述。混合方法系统性综述综合了针对健康女性的有效母乳喂养支持干预的过程评估,以及患有长期疾病的女性接受/提供母乳喂养支持的经验。交叉研究综合了定性和定量研究结果。系统性综述根据美国国家健康与护理卓越研究所的指南,综合了母乳喂养支持的增量成本和成本效益方面的证据。所有检索均在 2021 年 5 月至 2022 年 10 月期间进行。利益相关者参与和工具包开发包括在线讨论、改良德尔菲研究、焦点小组和四次研讨会。参与者包括 23 名利益相关者、家长小组中的 16 名家长、焦点小组中的 15 名女性以及参加研讨会的 87 名利益相关者:我们发现,为健康妇女设计的干预措施(综述 1)比针对长期患病妇女的干预措施(综述 1 和 4)要多得多;大约一半的研究针对的是母乳喂养效果不佳风险较高的群体,而支持对这些人群的影响可能有所不同。尽管如此,综述 2 中的研究发现,妇女认为提供支持是积极、重要和必要的。综述 5 中的研究与参与者就改善母乳喂养支持的潜在策略提出的一系列建议不谋而合,其中报告最多的就是需要承认其他支持来源(如伴侣、家人、朋友、同伴、外部专业人士、网络资源)的作用和影响,并让这些来源参与到为患有长期疾病的妇女提供母乳喂养支持的工作中来。在综述 3 和综述 6 中,由于研究数量有限且缺乏高质量的证据,母乳喂养支持干预措施的成本效益存在不确定性:英国缺乏母乳喂养干预措施的有效性和成本效益方面的证据。有关干预措施特点的信息往往不足:仅母乳喂养 "支持可能会减少停止任何母乳喂养或纯母乳喂养的妇女人数。母乳喂养加 "干预措施的证据不太一致,但这些措施可能会减少在 4-6 周和 6 个月时停止纯母乳喂养的妇女人数。我们没有发现干预效果因提供方式或提供者而异的证据。由于缺乏高质量的证据,成本效益尚不确定。成功实施干预的关键因素是响应性以及干预措施符合妇女和支持者的需求。纳入研究的母乳喂养支持可能对患有长期疾病的妇女的母乳喂养结果几乎没有影响。混合方法综述和利益相关者工作发现,现有干预措施可能无法满足这些妇女的复杂需求。研究的主要成果是共同制作了一个工具包,用于指导英国母乳喂养支持服务的实施和评估:对所有妇女的母乳喂养支持进行评估,尤其是那些母乳喂养效果不佳的妇女(如长期患病、贫困)。这可能包括通过实施和有效性研究或使用质量改进研究,根据当地情况调整工具包:本研究已注册为 PROSPERO CRD42022337239、CRD42021229769 和 CRD42022374509。经济证据综述未注册;但可通过贝尔法斯特女王大学研究门户网站(https://pure.qub.ac.uk/)的资料库查阅综述协议。资金来源:该奖项由美国国家研究所资助:该奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究项目(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR130995)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第12卷第20期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请访问 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信