4.6 Article

Pasteurized Human Donor Milk Use among US Level 3 Neonatal Intensive Care Units

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN LACTATION
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 381-389

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0890334413492909

关键词

breastfeeding; neonatal intensive care unit; nutrition; pasteurized human donor milk; preterm; regional variation

资金

  1. Joel and Barbara Alpert Endowment for Children of the City

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Pasteurized human donor milk (DM) is recommended by the World Health Organization and American Academy of Pediatrics for preterm infants when mother's own milk is unavailable, yet the extent and predictors of use and criteria for use in US neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) are unknown. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate current DM use in US level 3 NICUs and predictors and criteria of use. Methods: We sent mail surveys to 302 US level 3 NICU directors. We used multivariable logistic regression to analyze predictors of DM use. Results: Survey response rate was 60%, and 76 of 182 (42%) directors reported DM use. Among DM users, 30% have used DM < 2 years and 55% for 2 to 5 years. Among nonusers, 63% were uncertain of turnaround time when ordering DM, 36% were unclear what guidelines milk banks followed, and 31% were unsure of parent receptiveness. In multivariate analyses, > 800 annual admissions (odds ratio [OR], 4.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-11.82; reference 400 admissions) and location in the Midwest (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.17-7.76) and West (OR, 6.33; 95% CI, 2.28-15.57; reference Northeast) were positively associated with DM use; safety-net hospitals (> 75% Medicaid insurance) were negatively associated (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14-0.89). Conclusion: Pasteurized human donor milk use is rapidly emerging among US level 3 NICUs. Larger NICUs and those in the West and Midwest were more likely to use DM, while safety-net hospitals were less likely to use DM. Lack of knowledge by medical directors of accessibility, safety, and parental receptiveness may be barriers to DM use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据