The economic benefits of increasing kangaroo skin-to-skin care and breastfeeding in neonatal units: analysis of a pragmatic intervention in clinical practice

International Breastfeeding Journal

Mary J Renfrew¹  Bill McGuire²  Julie Watson⁵  Clare Offer⁴  Karin Lowson³ 

[1] University of Dundee, School of Nursing & Midwifery, 11 Airlie Place, Dundee DD1 4HJ, UK;Hull York Medical School/NIHR Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5NH, North Yorkshire, UK;York Health Economics Consortium, Enterprise House, University of York, York YO10 5NQ, UK;Specialty Registrar in Public Health, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5NH, North Yorkshire, UK;Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University, Robert Winston Building (F414), Collegiate Crescent Campus, Sheffield S10 2BP, South Yorkshire, UK

关键词: Preterm;    Neonatal;    Economics;    Benefits;    Costs;    Kangaroo skin-to-skin;    Skin-to-skin;    Kangaroo care;    Breastfeeding;    Change at scale;    Quality improvement;   

Others  :  1219601
DOI  :  10.1186/s13006-015-0035-8

 received in 2014-05-12, accepted in 2015-01-28,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

A number of significant recent research studies have used techniques of economic modelling to demonstrate the potential benefits of increasing breastfeeding rates in the UK overall, and specifically in neonatal care. This paper complements this growing body of evidence by presenting an economic analysis of data from an actual intervention, the ‘Getting It Right From the Start’ programme, which took place in the north of the UK during 2011–12, with the aim of increasing breastfeeding and kangaroo skin-to-skin care rates in neonatal units.

Methods

‘Getting It Right from the Start’ was a pragmatic, multifaceted programme of change delivered under the auspices of the regional Health Innovation and Education Cluster, of which 17 were established in the UK in 2010. It engaged with 18 neonatal units in two Neonatal Networks with the aim of increasing kangaroo skin-to-skin care and breastfeeding rates.

As part of the evaluation of the programme, we conducted an economic study comparing the overall costs and benefits of the intervention.

Results

Overall, the economic analysis demonstrated that for every £1 invested in the intervention to increase kangaroo skin-to-skin care and breastfeeding rates, between £4.00 and £13.82 of benefit was generated. This was spread across different healthcare settings and the timescale for the realisation of benefits will vary.

The increases in kangaroo skin-to-skin care generated the greatest cost savings, with potential cost savings ranging between £668,000 (minimum cost assumptions) to more than £2 m (maximum cost assumptions).

Increases in breastfeeding associated with the project generated between £68,486 and £582,432. The majority of the cost savings generated were associated with reductions in cases of gastroenteritis and necrotising enterocolitis.

Conclusion

This was one of the first economic evaluations of an actual intervention to increase breastfeeding and kangaroo skin-to-skin care in neonatal units. It complements the existing economic models by demonstrating that a real intervention in clinical practice was both cost effective as well as clinically beneficial. Future interventions with similar methodology should be supported and considered likely to generate significant cost savings compared to outlay.

Economic evaluation should be more frequently included in studies of practical interventions in clinical settings to increase breastfeeding.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Lowson et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bartick M, Reinhold A. The burden of suboptimal breastfeeding in the United States: a pediatric cost analysis. Pediatrics. 2010; 125(5):e1048-56.
• [2]Büchner FL, Hoekstra J, Van Rossum CTM. Health gain and economic evaluation of breastfeeding policies: model simulation. Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (RIVM), Bilthoven; 2007.
• [3]Drane D. Breastfeeding and formula feeding: a preliminary economic analysis. Breastfeed Rev. 1997; 5(1):7-15.
• [4]Renfrew MJ, Pokhrel S, Quigley M, McCormick F, Fox-Rushby J, Dodds R et al.. Preventing disease and saving resources: the potential contribution of increasing breastfeeding rates in the UK. UNICEF, UK; 2012.
• [5]Smith JP, Thompson JF, Ellwood DA. Hospital system costs of artificial infant feeding: estimates for the Australian Capital Territory. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2002; 26(6):543-51.
• [6]Sachdev HPS, Shah D. Kangaroo mother care to reduce morbidity and mortality in low-birth-weight infants (last revised: 1 September 2011). The WHO Reproductive Health Library. World Health Organization, Geneva; 2011.
• [7]Conde-Agudelo A, Diaz-Rossello JL, Belizan JM. Kangaroo mother care to reduce morbidity and mortality in low birthweight infants. Cochrane Data Syst Rev. 2000; 4:CD002771.
• [8]Darzi A. High quality care for all: NHS next stage review final report. The Stationery Office, London; 2008.
• [9]Final Report - 2010-2013. MID Ref 12120503. Yorkshire HIEC, Bradford, UK; 2013.
• [10]Renfrew MJ, Herbert G, Wallace LM, Spiby H, McFadden A. Developing practice in breastfeeding. Matern Child Nutr. 2006; 2(4):245-61.
• [11]Dyson L, Renfrew MJ, McFadden A, McCormick F, Herbert G, Thomas J. Policy and public health recommendations to promote the initiation and duration of breast-feeding in developed country settings. Public Health Nutr. 2010; 13(1):137-44.
• [12]Burke CSH, McFadden A, LessingTurner G, Herbert G, Thomas J, Renfrew MJ. Improving maternal and infant health and care: at admission in labour and promoting attachment and breastfeeding in neonatal units. Evidence into practice consultations. University of York, York; 2011.
• [13]Charpak N, Ruiz-Pelaez JG, de Figueroa CZ, Charpak Y. A randomized, controlled trial of kangaroo mother care: results of follow-up at 1 year of corrected age. Pediatrics. 2001; 108(5):1072-9.
• [14]Cowan HLT. Supporting skin-to-skin care in the neonatal unit. Infant. 2013; 9(3):89-91.
• [15]Renfrew MJ, Craig D, Dyson L, McCormick F, Rice S, King SE et al.. Breastfeeding promotion for infants in neonatal units: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2009; 13(40):1-146.
• [16]The small wonders DVD. Best Beginnings, London, UK; 2012.
• [17]Moore ER, Anderson GC, Bergman N. Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 5:1-109.
• [18]Hall D, Kirsten G. Kangaroo Mother Care–a review. Transfus Med. 2008; 18(2):77-82.
• [19]Cattaneo NDR, Worku B, Surjono A, Echeverria M, Bedri A, Haksari E et al.. Kangaroo mother care for low birth weight infants: a randomized controlled trial in different settings. Acta Paediatr. 1998; 87(9):976-85.
• [20]Sontheimer D, Fischer CB, Buch KE. Kangaroo transport instead of incubator transport. Pediatrics. 2004; 113(4):920-3.
• [21]Feldman R, Weller A, Sirota L, Eidelman AI. Testing a family intervention hypothesis: the contribution of mother-infant skin-to-skin contact (kangaroo care) to family interaction, proximity, and touch. J Family Psychol JFP J Division Family Psychol Am Psychological Assoc. 2003; 17(1):94-107.
• [22]Fischer CB, Sontheimer D, Scheffer F, Bauer J, Linderkamp O. Cardiorespiratory stability of premature boys and girls during kangaroo care. Early Hum Dev. 1998; 52(2):145-53.
• [23]Nyqvist KH, Mother C, Anderson GC, Bergman N, Cattaneo A, Charpak N et al.. State of the art and recommendations. Kangaroo mother care: application in a high-tech environment. Acta Paediatr. 2010; 99(6):812-9.
• [24]Quigley MA, Kelly YJ, Sacker A. Breastfeeding and hospitalization for diarrheal and respiratory infection in the United Kingdom Millenium Cohort Study. Pediatrics. 2007; 119(4):e837-42.
• [25]Renfrew M, McFadden A, McCormick F, Herbert G, Thomas J. Promotion of breastfeeding initiation and duration. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London; 2006.
• [26]Oddy WH, Holt PG, Sly PD, Read AW, Landau LI, Stanley FJ et al.. Association between breast feeding and asthma in 6 year old children: findings of a prospective birth cohort study. BMJ. 1999; 319(7213):815-9.
• [27]Möller T, Olsson H, Ranstam J. Breast cancer and breastfeeding: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries, including 50302 women with breast cancer and 96973 women without the disease. Lancet. 2002; 360(9328):187-95.
• [28]Lowson K, Offer C. Maternal and infant health and care programme: an economic study. University of York, York; 2013.
• [29]2010–11 reference costs publication. Department of Health, London, UK; 2011.
• [30]Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care, 2011. The University of Kent, Kent, UK; 2011.
• [31]National Child and Maternal Health Intelligence Network. Public Health England, York, UK; 2014.
• [32]BadgerNet Computer Software. CleverMed, Edinburgh, UK; 2014.
• [33]Postnatal care: routine postnatal care of women and their babies: costing report. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London; 2006.
• [34]Antibiotics for early -onset neonatal infection: costing report. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London; 2012.
• [35]Infant feeding survey. Health and Social Care Information Centre, Leeds, UK; 2010.
• [36]Kramer MS, Kakuma R. The optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding: a systematic review. World Health Organization, Geneva; 2002.
• [37]Rice SJ, Craig D, McCormick F, Renfrew MJ, Williams AF. 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.