4.2 Article

Top 10 research priorities for human milk banking and use of donor human milk: A partnership between parents and clinicians

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH
卷 56, 期 5, 页码 770-776

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jpc.14742

关键词

consumer participation; human; infant; milk; milk banks; preterm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim This study sought to establish research priorities in human milk banking and use of pasteurised donor human milk. It aimed to (i) collaborate with national stakeholders, including parents of preterm infants, human milk donors and health-care professionals, to identify evidence uncertainties and (ii) agree by consensus on a consolidated prioritised list of research questions. Methods A consensus approach modelled on the James Lind Alliance was used. A steering group was formed, and key stakeholder organisations identified. Evidence uncertainties were gathered through an online survey and literature search. An iterative process was used to consolidate and rank questions. A final workshop was held to identify the top 10 research priorities. Results A total of 391 evidence uncertainties were gathered from 202 respondents (38% parents of preterm infants/milk donors, 50% health-care professionals, 12% who identified as both a parent of preterm and health professional) and a further 15 were identified from literature. The steering group consolidated these to 39 evidence uncertainties, which were ranked via another survey. The top 24 questions were workshopped by 13 participants (four parents and nine clinicians) to determine the top 10 research priorities. These included the risks and benefits of using donor milk, optimum techniques for processing and the effects of these on the properties of milk, the nutrient profile of the milk and clinical criteria for prioritising receipt of milk. Conclusion The top 10 research priorities in human milk banking and use of donor milk were identified and can be used to guide researchers.

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

4.2
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