Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Prevalence and predictors of donor milk programs among U.S. advanced neonatal care facilities

Journal of Perinatology volume 40, pages 672–680 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective

(1) Determine national prevalence and predictors of donor milk programs among levels 2–4 advanced neonatal care facilities; (2) describe characteristics of donor milk programs.

Study design

We randomly selected 120 U.S. hospitals with levels 2–4 advanced neonatal care facilities among each of four U.S. regions and surveyed the medical directors from July 2017 to November 2017 regarding donor milk use. We weighted responses according to the number of birthing hospitals in each region.

Results

Response rate was 213/480 (44%). Twenty-eight percent of level 2 and 88% of levels 3 and 4 neonatal care facilities had donor milk programs. Donor milk programs occurred more often in the South vs. Northeast (aOR 3.7 [1.1, 12.5] and less often in safety-net hospitals (≥75% Medicaid patients) vs. nonsafety-net hospitals (aOR 0.3 [0.1, 0.8]).

Conclusion

In 2017, the vast majority of levels 3 and 4 neonatal care facilities had donor milk programs but disparities existed according to the safety-net hospital status and region.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: This graph depicts the response to the 150 U.S. medical directors with donor milk programs regarding year of initiation.

Similar content being viewed by others

Code availability

SAS code used to conduct the analysis is available upon request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Sullivan S, Schanler RJ, Kim JH, Patel AL, Trawoger R, Kiechl-Kohlendorfer U, et al. An exclusively human milk-based diet is associated with a lower rate of necrotizing enterocolitis than a diet of human milk and bovine milk-based products. J Pediatr. 2010;156:562–7 e1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. O’Connor DL, Gibbins S, Kiss A, Bando N, Brennan-Donnan J, Ng E, et al. Effect of supplemental donor human milk compared with preterm formula on neurodevelopment of very low-birth-weight infants at 18 months: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316:1897–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cristofalo EA, Schanler RJ, Blanco CL, Sullivan S, Trawoeger R, Kiechl-Kohlendorfer U, et al. Randomized trial of exclusive human milk versus preterm formula diets in extremely premature infants. J Pediatr. 2013;163:1592–5 e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hair AB, Peluso AM, Hawthorne KM, Perez J, Smith DP, Khan JY, et al. Beyond necrotizing enterocolitis prevention: improving outcomes with an exclusive human milk-based diet. Breastfeed Med. 2016;11:70–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sisk PM, Lambeth TM, Rojas MA, Lightbourne T, Barahona M, Anthony E, et al. Necrotizing enterocolitis and growth in preterm infants fed predominantly maternal milk, pasteurized donor milk, or preterm formula: a retrospective study. Am J Perinatol. 2017;34:676–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Section on Breastfeeding. Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Pediatrics. 2012;129:e827–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Committee On Nutrition, Section On Breastfeeding, Committee On Fetus and Newborn. Donor human milk for the high-risk infant: preparation, safety, and usage options in the United States. Pediatrics. 2017;139 pii: e20163440.

  8. Nonprofit donor human milk distribution increases by 12 percent in 2018. https://www.hmbana.org/news/donor-human-milk-distribution-2018.html. 2018. Accessed 20 Jun 2019.

  9. Parker MG, Barrero-Castillero A, Corwin BK, Kavanagh PL, Belfort MB, Wang CJ. Pasteurized human donor milk use among US level 3 neonatal intensive care units. J Hum Lact. 2013;29:381–9.

  10. Hagadorn JI, Brownell EA, Lussier MM, Parker MG, Herson VC. Variability of criteria for pasteurized donor human milk use: a survey of U.S. neonatal intensive care unit medical directors. J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2016;40:326–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Perrine CG, Scanlon KS. Prevalence of use of human milk in US advanced care neonatal units. Pediatrics. 2013;131:1066–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Perrin MT. Donor human milk and fortifier use in United States level 2, 3, and 4 neonatal care hospitals. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018;66:664–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Belfort MB, Drouin K, Riley JF, Gregory KE, Philipp BL, Parker MG, et al. Prevalence and trends in donor milk use in the well-baby nursery: a survey of Northeast United States birth hospitals. Breastfeed Med. 2018;13:34–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. US Census Bureau Quick Facts. https://www.hmbana.org/news/donor-human-milk-distribution-2018.html. Accessed 21 Jun 2019.

  15. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Levels of neonatal care. Pediatrics. 2012;130:587–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. National Academies Press. America’s health care safety net: intact but endangered. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press; 2000.

  17. Census Regions and Divisions of the United States. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2020.

  18. Rangecroft L, de San Lazaro C, Scott JE. A comparison of the feeding of the postoperative newborn with banked breast-milk or cow’s-milk feeds. J Pediatr Surg. 1978;13:11–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Howell EA, Janevic T, Hebert PL, Egorova NN, Balbierz A, Zeitlin J. Differences in morbidity and mortality rates in Black, White, and Hispanic very preterm infants among New York City hospitals. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172:269–77.

  20. Riley B, Schoeny M, Rogers L, Asiodu IV, Bigger HR, Meier PP, et al. Barriers to human milk feeding at discharge of very low-birthweight infants: evaluation of neighborhood structural factors. Breastfeed Med. 2016;11:335–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fleurant E, Schoeny M, Hoban R, Asiodu IV, Riley B, Meier PP, et al. Barriers to human milk feeding at discharge of very-low-birth-weight infants: maternal goal setting as a key social factor. Breastfeed Med. 2017;12:20–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Merewood A, Bugg K, Burnham L, Krane K, Nickel N, Broom S, et al. Addressing racial inequities in breastfeeding in the Southern United States. Pediatrics. 2019;143 pii: e20181897.

  23. Center for Disease Control. Breastfeeding report card, United States 2018. Center for Disease Control; 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/pdf/2018breastfeedingreportcard.pdf.

  24. Parker MG, Greenberg LT, Edwards EM, Ehret D, Belfort MB, Horbar JD. National trends in the provision of human milk at hospital discharge among very low-birth-weight infants. JAMA Pediatr. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.2645. [Epub ahead of print].

  25. Boundy EO, Perrine CG, Nelson JM, Hamner HC. Disparities in hospital-reported breast milk use in neonatal intensive care units - United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66:1313–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hwang JS, Friedlander S, Rehan VK, Zangwill KM. Diagnosis of congenital/perinatal infections by neonatologists: a national survey. J Perinatol. 2019;39:690–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Krick JA, Feltman DM. Neonatologists’ preferences regarding guidelines for periviable deliveries: do we really know what we want? J Perinatol. 2019;39:445–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Feltman DM, Du H, Leuthner SR. Survey of neonatologists’ attitudes toward limiting life-sustaining treatments in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol. 2011;32:886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Manja V, Guyatt G, Lakshminrusimha S, Jack S, Kirpalani H, Zupancic JAF, et al. Factors influencing decision making in neonatology: inhaled nitric oxide in preterm infants. J Perinatol. 2019;39:86–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Adriana Lopera, Anna Walsh, and Thea Lacerta for assistance in identifying medical directors.

Funding

This work was supported by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (P3031871).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, Boston Medical Center, 88 East Newton St. Vose Hall, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA, USA

    Margaret G. Parker, Laura A. Burnham & Michael Corwin

  2. Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

    Stephen Kerr & Michael Corwin

  3. Department of Pediatric Newborn Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Mandy B. Belfort

  4. Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA

    Maryanne Perrin

  5. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    Timothy Heeren

Authors
  1. Margaret G. Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura A. Burnham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen Kerr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mandy B. Belfort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maryanne Perrin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael Corwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Timothy Heeren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MGP conceptualized and designed the study, interpreted the data, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. MBB, MP, and MC interpreted the data and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. LAB and SK assisted with acquisition and interpretation of the data and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. TH conceptualized and designed the study, interpreted the data, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed the revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret G. Parker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

MP serves on the Board of Directors of the Human Milk Banking Association of North America. MGP and MBB serve on the research board of the Mother’s Milk Bank Northeast. These are all unpaid positions. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parker, M.G., Burnham, L.A., Kerr, S. et al. Prevalence and predictors of donor milk programs among U.S. advanced neonatal care facilities. J Perinatol 40, 672–680 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-020-0620-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-020-0620-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links