Human milk products in the National Health Service: a cross-sectional survey of use and industry contact across England's trusts.

JRSM Open Pub Date : 2024-04-30 eCollection Date: 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1177/20542704241237658
Sarah L Steele, Noah C A Cooke
{"title":"Human milk products in the National Health Service: a cross-sectional survey of use and industry contact across England's trusts.","authors":"Sarah L Steele, Noah C A Cooke","doi":"10.1177/20542704241237658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Commentators and professional organisations note that an expanding market in human milk-based products (HMBPs) could reduce breastfeeding, compromising maternal and infant health, and undermine public milk bank donations. We investigate whether English NHS trusts purchased these products and whether HMBP companies have marketed to them.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Freedom of Information (FOI) requests asking: (1) whether trusts obtained human milk; (2) if so, how; and (3) whether HMBP companies had approached them. We analysed trusts' responses qualitatively. In 2023, an FOI request to the Food Standards Authority (FSA) following a product recall.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>England.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>One hundred and ninety-four NHS trusts, the FSA.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Obtaining human milk, approaches by companies, and trust responses to approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and seventy-six trusts responded, 102 reporting human milk from milk banks. No trusts reported purchasing from companies in 2022. In 2023, the FSA confirmed six English hospitals used HMBPs from one company; an FOI for trusts' names was refused on law enforcement grounds. Two trusts reported participating in clinical trials funded by companies. Twenty-one reported approaches, using several strategies, including uninvited ward visits. Trusts rejected marketing based on guidance from: (1) trust dieticians or physicians; (2) regional regulatory bodies; (3) professional bodies; and (4) perceived application of an International Code on breastfeeding.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Companies market to trusts, adopting methods previously used by the formula industry. Trusts express confusion over whether this infringes agreements designed to promote breastfeeding. We encourage clarification and guidance for professionals and trusts to ensure safety, infant and maternal health, and protect public provision.</p>","PeriodicalId":17674,"journal":{"name":"JRSM Open","volume":"15 5","pages":"20542704241237658"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11062219/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JRSM Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20542704241237658","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Commentators and professional organisations note that an expanding market in human milk-based products (HMBPs) could reduce breastfeeding, compromising maternal and infant health, and undermine public milk bank donations. We investigate whether English NHS trusts purchased these products and whether HMBP companies have marketed to them.

Design: Freedom of Information (FOI) requests asking: (1) whether trusts obtained human milk; (2) if so, how; and (3) whether HMBP companies had approached them. We analysed trusts' responses qualitatively. In 2023, an FOI request to the Food Standards Authority (FSA) following a product recall.

Setting: England.

Participants: One hundred and ninety-four NHS trusts, the FSA.

Main outcome measures: Obtaining human milk, approaches by companies, and trust responses to approaches.

Results: One hundred and seventy-six trusts responded, 102 reporting human milk from milk banks. No trusts reported purchasing from companies in 2022. In 2023, the FSA confirmed six English hospitals used HMBPs from one company; an FOI for trusts' names was refused on law enforcement grounds. Two trusts reported participating in clinical trials funded by companies. Twenty-one reported approaches, using several strategies, including uninvited ward visits. Trusts rejected marketing based on guidance from: (1) trust dieticians or physicians; (2) regional regulatory bodies; (3) professional bodies; and (4) perceived application of an International Code on breastfeeding.

Conclusions: Companies market to trusts, adopting methods previously used by the formula industry. Trusts express confusion over whether this infringes agreements designed to promote breastfeeding. We encourage clarification and guidance for professionals and trusts to ensure safety, infant and maternal health, and protect public provision.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国民健康服务中的人乳制品:对英格兰各信托机构的使用情况和行业联系的横断面调查。
目标:评论家和专业组织指出,人乳产品(HMBP)市场的扩大可能会减少母乳喂养,损害母婴健康,并破坏公共母乳库的捐赠。我们调查了英国国家医疗服务系统(NHS)信托机构是否购买了这些产品,以及人乳产品公司是否向这些信托机构进行了推销:设计:通过信息自由 (FOI) 申请询问:(1) 信托公司是否获得人乳;(2) 如果获得,如何获得;(3) 母婴保健品公司是否与其接触。我们对托管机构的答复进行了定性分析。2023 年,食品标准局(FSA)在产品召回后收到一份信息自由申请:地点:英格兰:主要结果测量指标:主要结果测量指标:获得母乳、公司的接触以及信托机构对接触的回应:结果:176 家信托机构做出了回应,其中 102 家报告从牛奶库中获得了母乳。2022 年,没有信托机构报告从公司购买。2023 年,金融服务管理局证实有六家英国医院使用了一家公司的人乳制品;以执法为由拒绝了关于信托机构名称的信息公开申请。两家托管机构报告参与了由公司资助的临床试验。21 家医院报告了使用多种策略进行的接触,包括不请自来的病房探访。托儿所拒绝营销的依据是:(1)托儿所营养师或医生的指导;(2)地区监管机构;(3)专业机构;以及(4)对《国际母乳喂养守则》应用的认识:结论:公司采用配方奶粉行业以前使用的方法向信托机构进行营销。信托机构对这种做法是否违反了旨在促进母乳喂养的协议表示困惑。我们鼓励对专业人士和信托机构进行澄清和指导,以确保安全、婴儿和产妇健康,并保护公共供应。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JRSM Open is a peer reviewed online-only journal that follows the open-access publishing model. It is a companion journal to the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. The journal publishes research papers, research letters, clinical and methodological reviews, and case reports. Our aim is to inform practice and policy making in clinical medicine. The journal has an international and multispecialty readership that includes primary care and public health professionals.
期刊最新文献
Providing personalised care for people with tuberculosis: an evaluation of enhanced case management in a UK TB Network 2013 to 2021. Redeployment experiences of healthcare workers in the UK during COVID-19: a cross-sectional analysis from the nationwide UK-REACH study. Surgical reconstruction for spasticity and contracture: An underutilised rehabilitative strategy of adult stroke. Long COVID symptoms and demographic associations: A retrospective case series study using healthcare application data. Racial microaggressions within the UK Healthcare System: a narrative review.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1