Donor Human Milk Banking and the Emergence of Milk Sharing

Landers, Susan; Hartmann, Ben

doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2012.09.009

Cited by 42 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The relative risks and benefits of human milk sharing have been the subject of numerous editorials, commentaries and a growing scientific literature (Arnold, 2009; Cohen et al 2010; Landers & Updegrove 2010; Akre et al 2011; Geraghty et al 2011; Gribble & Hausman 2012; Nelson 2012; Brent 2013; Geraghty et al 2013; Keim et al 2013, 2015; Landers & Hartmann 2013; Updegrove 2013a,b; Gribble 2014c; Keim et al . 2014a,b; Martino & Spatz 2014; Carter et al 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Controversies surrounding milk sharing emanate from concerns about the potential risks involved in feeding an infant with human milk donated by individuals who are not systematically screened by a trained health professional (Geraghty et al 2011; Gribble & Hausman 2012; Nelson 2012; Brent 2013; Jones 2013; Landers & Hartmann 2013; Keim et al . 2014a,b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2014a,b). These risks include transmission of disease, exposure to medications and substances, and microbial contamination associated with storage and handling practices (Golding 1997; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2010; Walker & Armstrong 2012; Brent 2013; Landers & Hartmann 2013; Martino & Spatz 2014). Other tensions have arisen around the potential negative impact of milk sharing on the supply of donor milk to non‐profit human milk banks (Jones 2003; Updegrove 2013a,b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Human milk sharing practices in the U.S.

Palmquist

Doehler

2015

Maternal & Child Nutrition

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary objective of this study is to describe human milk sharing practices in the U.S. Specifically, we examine milk sharing social networks, donor compensation, the prevalence of anonymous milk sharing interactions, recipients' concerns about specific milk sharing risks, and lay screening behaviors. Data on human milk sharing practices were collected via an online survey September 2013–March 2014. Chi‐square analyses were used to test the association between risk perception and screening practices. A total of 867 (661 donors, 206 recipients) respondents were included in the analyses. Most (96.1%) reported sharing milk face‐to‐face. Only 10% of respondents reported giving or receiving milk through a non‐profit human milk bank, respectively. There were no reports of anonymous purchases of human milk. A small proportion of recipients (4.0%) reported that their infant had a serious medical condition. Screening of prospective donors was common (90.7%) but varied with social relationship and familiarity. Likewise, concern about specific milk sharing risks was varied, and risk perception was significantly associated (P‐values = 0.01 or less) with donor screening for all risk variables except diet. Understanding lay perceptions of milk sharing risk and risk reduction strategies that parents are using is an essential first step in developing public health interventions and clinical practices that promote infant safety.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Human milk sharing practices in the U.S.

Palmquist

Doehler

2015

Maternal & Child Nutrition

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Failure to adequately screen donors places infants at risk when being fed informally acquired, unpasteurized milk. Even when donors have passed screening criteria, milk banks still discard any batches of milk that fail to pass culture standards post-pasteurization [44].…”

Section: Milk Sharingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Donor Human Milk: No Longer A Place For Formula in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit?

Adamkin

Radmacher

2014

Curr Pediatr Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human milk is the best food for human infants, including those born preterm. Human milk feeding benefits the preterm infant by improving mental and motor development, decreasing the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, and retinopathy of prematurity during the postnatal period spent in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. In order to support the increased nutrient requirements of these infants, human milk must be fortified. In the absence of a mother's own milk, donor human milk is becoming a more commonly used replacement for bovine-based formula, especially in the tiniest patients. While donor human milk has been shown to convey many of the benefits of mother's own milk, it is generally lower in protein and calories than preterm milk and may require fortification in different proportions. This report discusses the evidence for donor human milk in the nutritional support of the preterm infant.

show abstract

“…The benefits of breast milk is undeniable to meet the demand for neonatal growth nutritionally, immunologically, developmentally, including short and long term health outcomes (202). Breastfeeding is known to lower the incidence of respiratory disease, infection, allergy, necrotising enterocolitis, sudden infant death syndrome, obesity, inflammation (203) and prevent retinopathy of prematurity in very low birth weight infants (204).…”

Section: Human Milk Nutrition and Lactation Stagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Essential trace element analysis of human breast milk

Taufek¹,

Hidayah²

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Donor Human Milk Banking and the Emergence of Milk Sharing

Cited by 42 publications

References 40 publications

Human milk sharing practices in the U.S.

Human milk sharing practices in the U.S.

Donor Human Milk: No Longer A Place For Formula in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit?

Essential trace element analysis of human breast milk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About