The cost-effectiveness of education and support group interventions aimed at promoting breastfeeding.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, Sharangini Rajesh, Shalmali Deshpande, Vivien Swanson, Charlotte Wright, Samantha Ross, Victoria L Sibson, Karen McLean, Anita Kambo, Shereen Fisher, Patrick Muller, Maija Kallioinen
{"title":"The cost-effectiveness of education and support group interventions aimed at promoting breastfeeding.","authors":"Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, Sharangini Rajesh, Shalmali Deshpande, Vivien Swanson, Charlotte Wright, Samantha Ross, Victoria L Sibson, Karen McLean, Anita Kambo, Shereen Fisher, Patrick Muller, Maija Kallioinen","doi":"10.1093/eurpub/ckaf172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Breastfeeding, especially exclusive, is associated with long-lasting health benefits to mothers and babies and healthcare cost-savings; however, breastfeeding rates are low in many high-income countries. Education and support interventions are effective in promoting breastfeeding but evidence on their cost-effectiveness is limited, uncertain, or negative. Our study objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of group-based breastfeeding interventions from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective in England. We used decision-analytic modelling to estimate incremental costs, clinical benefits (prevention of infections and death in babies, prevention of breast cancer in mothers) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of group breastfeeding interventions from the NHS/PSS perspective in England. A systematic review and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials was performed to estimate intervention effectiveness, while data on the benefits of breastfeeding were obtained from large published meta-analyses. Other model inputs were derived from published literature and national statistics. Compared with standard care alone, group breastfeeding interventions resulted in fewer infections and deaths in babies, fewer cases of breast cancer in mothers and higher QALYs (0.004 per mother-baby dyad), through increased rates of breastfeeding, and yielded cost-savings (£89 per mother-baby dyad) that outweighed intervention costs (£28 per mother-baby dyad). Group interventions that promote breastfeeding by providing education, advice and support to mothers are likely cost-effective in England. Further research should enhance the evidence base on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding interventions, considering their differential effects on different socioeconomic groups and a wider range of clinical benefits of breastfeeding.</p>","PeriodicalId":12059,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Public Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaf172","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Breastfeeding, especially exclusive, is associated with long-lasting health benefits to mothers and babies and healthcare cost-savings; however, breastfeeding rates are low in many high-income countries. Education and support interventions are effective in promoting breastfeeding but evidence on their cost-effectiveness is limited, uncertain, or negative. Our study objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of group-based breastfeeding interventions from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective in England. We used decision-analytic modelling to estimate incremental costs, clinical benefits (prevention of infections and death in babies, prevention of breast cancer in mothers) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of group breastfeeding interventions from the NHS/PSS perspective in England. A systematic review and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials was performed to estimate intervention effectiveness, while data on the benefits of breastfeeding were obtained from large published meta-analyses. Other model inputs were derived from published literature and national statistics. Compared with standard care alone, group breastfeeding interventions resulted in fewer infections and deaths in babies, fewer cases of breast cancer in mothers and higher QALYs (0.004 per mother-baby dyad), through increased rates of breastfeeding, and yielded cost-savings (£89 per mother-baby dyad) that outweighed intervention costs (£28 per mother-baby dyad). Group interventions that promote breastfeeding by providing education, advice and support to mothers are likely cost-effective in England. Further research should enhance the evidence base on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding interventions, considering their differential effects on different socioeconomic groups and a wider range of clinical benefits of breastfeeding.

旨在促进母乳喂养的教育和支助小组干预的成本效益。
母乳喂养,特别是纯母乳喂养,对母亲和婴儿的健康有长期好处,并可节省医疗费用;然而,在许多高收入国家,母乳喂养率很低。教育和支持干预措施在促进母乳喂养方面是有效的,但关于其成本效益的证据有限、不确定或消极。我们的研究目的是从英国国家卫生服务(NHS)和个人社会服务(PSS)的角度评估基于群体的母乳喂养干预的成本效益。我们使用决策分析模型从英国NHS/PSS的角度估计群体母乳喂养干预的增量成本、临床效益(预防婴儿感染和死亡、预防母亲乳腺癌)和质量调整生命年(QALYs)。对随机对照试验进行了系统回顾和荟萃回归,以评估干预效果,而母乳喂养益处的数据来自已发表的大型荟萃分析。其他模型输入来自已发表的文献和国家统计数据。与单独的标准护理相比,群体母乳喂养干预减少了婴儿的感染和死亡,减少了母亲的乳腺癌病例,通过提高母乳喂养率,提高了QALYs(每母子对0.004),并产生了成本节约(每母子对89英镑),超过了干预成本(每母子对28英镑)。在英格兰,通过向母亲提供教育、建议和支持来促进母乳喂养的团体干预措施可能具有成本效益。考虑到母乳喂养对不同社会经济群体的不同影响以及母乳喂养更广泛的临床益处,进一步的研究应加强母乳喂养干预措施的临床和成本效益的证据基础。
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
European Journal of Public Health
European Journal of Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
2.30%
发文量
2039
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Public Health (EJPH) is a multidisciplinary journal aimed at attracting contributions from epidemiology, health services research, health economics, social sciences, management sciences, ethics and law, environmental health sciences, and other disciplines of relevance to public health. The journal provides a forum for discussion and debate of current international public health issues, with a focus on the European Region. Bi-monthly issues contain peer-reviewed original articles, editorials, commentaries, book reviews, news, letters to the editor, announcements of events, and various other features.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信