Cargando…

Funding received from breastmilk substitute manufacturers and policy positions of national maternity care provider associations: an online cross-sectional review

OBJECTIVES: Maternity care providers play an essential role in supporting women to breast feed. It is critical that their professional associations limit influence from breastmilk substitute (BMS) manufacturers. Aims of this study were (i) to examine whether maternity care provider associations had...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Qassin, Salma, Homer, Caroline S E, Wilson, Alyce N
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8693090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34933857
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050179
_version_ 1784619072090013696
author Qassin, Salma
Homer, Caroline S E
Wilson, Alyce N
author_facet Qassin, Salma
Homer, Caroline S E
Wilson, Alyce N
author_sort Qassin, Salma
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Maternity care providers play an essential role in supporting women to breast feed. It is critical that their professional associations limit influence from breastmilk substitute (BMS) manufacturers. Aims of this study were (i) to examine whether maternity care provider associations had policy or positions statements addressing BMS marketing and (ii) to explore the type of funding received by these associations. DESIGN: An online cross-sectional review. SETTING: National or regional maternity provider professional associations in Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada and the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight maternity care provider (obstetricians, midwives, nurses and others involved in perinatal care) professional association websites. INTERVENTIONS: Websites were examined from November 2019 to October 2020. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Evidence of BMS industry funding and policy or position statements addressing acceptance of funding from industries such as BMS. RESULTS: Policies addressing the BMS industry were found for 14 associations (50%). UK-based associations (5/5, 100%) and perinatal associations (4/6, 67%) were most likely to have a policy. Six associations (6/28, 21%) received some form of BMS financial support. The highest rates of BMS support were seen in the form of event advertising (5/28, 18%); closely followed by event sponsorship (4/28, 14%). At a provider level, obstetric associations had the highest rates of BMS support (2/4, 50%). At a country level, US-based associations were most likely to receive BMS support (3/7, 43%). CONCLUSIONS: BMS industry financial support was received by one-fifth of maternity care provider associations. Half of these associations had policies addressing BMS marketing. BMS industry support can create conflicts of interest that can threaten efforts to support, protect and promote breast feeding. Healthcare provider associations should avoid BMS funding and at a minimum have policy or position statements addressing BMS marketing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8693090
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86930902022-01-07 Funding received from breastmilk substitute manufacturers and policy positions of national maternity care provider associations: an online cross-sectional review Qassin, Salma Homer, Caroline S E Wilson, Alyce N BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVES: Maternity care providers play an essential role in supporting women to breast feed. It is critical that their professional associations limit influence from breastmilk substitute (BMS) manufacturers. Aims of this study were (i) to examine whether maternity care provider associations had policy or positions statements addressing BMS marketing and (ii) to explore the type of funding received by these associations. DESIGN: An online cross-sectional review. SETTING: National or regional maternity provider professional associations in Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada and the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight maternity care provider (obstetricians, midwives, nurses and others involved in perinatal care) professional association websites. INTERVENTIONS: Websites were examined from November 2019 to October 2020. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Evidence of BMS industry funding and policy or position statements addressing acceptance of funding from industries such as BMS. RESULTS: Policies addressing the BMS industry were found for 14 associations (50%). UK-based associations (5/5, 100%) and perinatal associations (4/6, 67%) were most likely to have a policy. Six associations (6/28, 21%) received some form of BMS financial support. The highest rates of BMS support were seen in the form of event advertising (5/28, 18%); closely followed by event sponsorship (4/28, 14%). At a provider level, obstetric associations had the highest rates of BMS support (2/4, 50%). At a country level, US-based associations were most likely to receive BMS support (3/7, 43%). CONCLUSIONS: BMS industry financial support was received by one-fifth of maternity care provider associations. Half of these associations had policies addressing BMS marketing. BMS industry support can create conflicts of interest that can threaten efforts to support, protect and promote breast feeding. Healthcare provider associations should avoid BMS funding and at a minimum have policy or position statements addressing BMS marketing. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-12-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8693090/ /pubmed/34933857 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050179 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Public Health
Qassin, Salma
Homer, Caroline S E
Wilson, Alyce N
Funding received from breastmilk substitute manufacturers and policy positions of national maternity care provider associations: an online cross-sectional review
title Funding received from breastmilk substitute manufacturers and policy positions of national maternity care provider associations: an online cross-sectional review
title_full Funding received from breastmilk substitute manufacturers and policy positions of national maternity care provider associations: an online cross-sectional review
title_fullStr Funding received from breastmilk substitute manufacturers and policy positions of national maternity care provider associations: an online cross-sectional review
title_full_unstemmed Funding received from breastmilk substitute manufacturers and policy positions of national maternity care provider associations: an online cross-sectional review
title_short Funding received from breastmilk substitute manufacturers and policy positions of national maternity care provider associations: an online cross-sectional review
title_sort funding received from breastmilk substitute manufacturers and policy positions of national maternity care provider associations: an online cross-sectional review
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8693090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34933857
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050179
work_keys_str_mv AT qassinsalma fundingreceivedfrombreastmilksubstitutemanufacturersandpolicypositionsofnationalmaternitycareproviderassociationsanonlinecrosssectionalreview
AT homercarolinese fundingreceivedfrombreastmilksubstitutemanufacturersandpolicypositionsofnationalmaternitycareproviderassociationsanonlinecrosssectionalreview
AT wilsonalycen fundingreceivedfrombreastmilksubstitutemanufacturersandpolicypositionsofnationalmaternitycareproviderassociationsanonlinecrosssectionalreview