4.6 Review

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

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050179

Keywords

nutrition & dietetics; maternal medicine; perinatology; public health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to examine the policies of maternity care provider associations regarding BMS marketing and explore the types of funding received. Findings revealed that half of the associations had policies addressing the BMS industry, with one-fifth receiving some form of BMS financial support.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available