Experiences of Women Who Donated Human Milk

Candelaria, Laura; Spatz, Diane L.; Giordano, Noreen

doi:10.1016/j.jogn.2018.02.010

Cited by 2 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There were also geographic differences in education levels among donors, with studies conducted in Brazil reporting that the majority of donors were not college-educated compared to mostly college-educated donors in China, Norway, Spain, Taiwan and the USA (17,19,20,23,25,25,30,39) . Across all geographies, donors were predominantly married or living with a partner (16,(18)(19)(20)30,32,36) . Limited information was available on race-ethnicity (18,23,36) .…”

Section: Donor Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is limited research regarding donors' lifestyle characteristics including diet, exercise, legal and illegal drug use, which does not allow for any type of synthesis Age (years) Brazil (19) 2008 737 donors Majority < 25 (18 % < 18; 41 % 18 to 24) Brazil (20,21) 2009, 2010 36 donors Ranged from 14 to 33; mean age 25 Brazil (23) 2010 92 donors Ranged from 16 to 45; mean age 21 Brazil (32) 2016 12 donors Ranged from 18 to 39; mean age 26 Brazil (34) 2017 3513 donors Majority 20 to 35 (80 %) China (39) 2019 2680 donors Majority 25 to 35 (82 %); mean age 29 France (16) 2003 103 donors Ranged from 20 to 42; mean age 31 India (42) 2020 1553 donors Majority < 25 (88 %) Korea (31) 2016 915 donors Majority 30 to 39 (70 %) Norway (17) 2004 69 donors Ranged from 21 to 45; mean age 34 Poland (33) 2017 45 donors Ranged from 23 to 44; mean age 32 Spain (28) 2014 391 donors Median age of 34; IQR of 31-36 Spain (27) 2014 63 donors Ranged from 23 to 53; mean age 36 Spain (30) 2015 7 donors Ranged from 21 to 39; mean age 32 Spain (29) 2016 36 donors Ranged from 24 to 41; mean age 34 Taiwan (25) 2013 816 donors Ranged from 18 to 45; mean age 31 USA (18) 2007 87 donors Majority 30-39 (73 %) USA (36) 2018 12 donors All < 40 (50 % 21-29; 50 % 30-39) Marital status Brazil (19) 2008 737 donors Single (54 %) Brazil (20) 2009 36 donors Married or in a partnership (78 %) Brazil (32) 2016 12 donors Married or in a partnership (75 %) France (16) 2003 103 donors Married or in a partnership (97 %) Spain (30) 2015 7 donors Married (86 %) USA (18) 2007 87 donors Married (91 %) USA (36) 2018 12 donors Married (100 %) Race-ethnicity Brazil (23) 2010 92 donors White (72 %) USA (18) 2007 87 donors White (87 %) USA (36) 2018 12 donors White (100 %) Education Brazil (19) 2008 737 donors Some college/higher education (5 %) Brazil (20) 2009 36 donors Som...…”

Section: Donor Lifestyle Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Birth history Brazil (19) 2008 737 donors Delivered pre-term (47 %); had < 3 children (94 %) Brazil (20) 2009 36 donors Had 1 child (61 %) Brazil (23) 2010 92 donors Had 1 child (67 %) Brazil (32) 2016 12 donors Primiparous (83 %) Brazil (34) 2017 3513 donors Multiparous (94 %) Brazil (35) 2017 51 donors; 644 non-donors Donors less likely to have infant in NICU than non-donors China (39) 2019 2680 donors Delivered pre-term (8 %) France (16) 2003 103 donors Had 1 to 2 children (83 %) India (42) 2020 1553 donors Delivered pre-term (53 %); multiparous (57 %); infant admitted to NICU (37 %) Italy (38) 2018 659 donors Delivered after 35 weeks of gestational age (94 %) Norway (17) 2004 69 donors Most donors were primiparous and delivered at term (% not provided) Poland (33) 2017 45 donors Delivered pre-term (24 %) Spain (27) 2014 63 donors Delivered pre-term (21 %); primiparous (62 %) Spain (28) 2014 391 donors Delivered pre-term (23 %); primiparous (56 %); infant admitted to NICU (37 %) Spain (30) 2015 7 donors Had 1 to 2 children (100 %) Spain (29) 2016 36 donors Delivered pre-term (17 %) Taiwan (25) 2013 816 donors Delivered pre-term (8 %); primiparous (69 %) USA (18) 2007 87 donors Had 1 to 2 children (80 %) USA (36) 2018 12 donors Primiparous (50 %); had infant in NICU (100 %) Disease Brazil (34) 2017 3513 donors HIV prevalence decreased to 0 %, syphilis increased to 1•8 %, and acute hepatitis B increased to 3 % over 10 years. Poland (33) 2017 45 donors Had chronic disease not contraindicated to donation (24 %) USA (22) 2010 1091 donors 3•3 % rejected for abnormal serological screening Prenatal care Brazil (20) 2009 36 donors Attended 3-30 prenatal healthcare visits (100 %) Brazil (32) 2016 12 donors Attended 7-12 prenatal healthcare visits (100 %)…”

Section: Sub-category Country Year Subjects Findingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across all geographies, donors were predominantly married or living with a partner (16,(18)(19)(20)30,32,36) . Limited information was available on race-ethnicity (18,23,36) . No information was collected about gender in any of the studies, suggesting that donor gender may have been assumed in prior research.…”

Section: Donor Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…France (16) 2003 103 donors Excellent/good breast-feeding experience (97 %); USA (36) 2018 12 donors Exclusive breast-feeding (100 %)…”

Section: Breast-feeding Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

What is known about human milk bank donors around the world: a systematic scoping review

Santos

Perrin

2021

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The World Health Organization recommends that low birth weight infants receive donor human milk (DHM) when mother’s milk is not available. Systematic reviews have been published regarding clinical outcomes of infants receiving DHM, as well as the impact of pasteurization on the composition of DHM; however, information about milk bank donors has not been systematically assessed. Design: We conducted a systematic scoping review of original research articles about milk bank donors published before August 2020. Results: A total of 28 studies were included across a variety of geographies: United States (n=8), Brazil (n=7), Spain (n=4), India (n=2), and single studies in France, Norway, Poland, Italy, Taiwan, Korea, and China. Study variables were grouped into 6 main categories: Donor Demographics (n=19), Clinical Characteristics (n=20), Donor Experiences (n=16), Donation Patterns (n=16), Lifestyle Characteristics (n=4), and Lactation/Breastfeeding History (n=8). Some demographic characteristics were commonly reported across regions, while other, including gender and race were infrequently explored. Factors that might influence the composition of DHM, including birth timing (term or preterm), milk type (colostrum, transition or mature), and maternal diet were not regularly studied. Other gaps in the literature included: donors’ motivations and barriers to donation; lactation and breastfeeding history, including factors that influence donors to pump and amass surplus milk; and donation patterns, including whether donors are also selling milk to corporations or sharing milk with peers. Conclusion: What is known about milk bank donors in different geographies is often limited to a single study, with heterogeneity in the variables reported.

show abstract

Section: Donor Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Donor Lifestyle Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sub-category Country Year Subjects Findingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Donor Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…France (16) 2003 103 donors Excellent/good breast-feeding experience (97 %); USA (36) 2018 12 donors Exclusive breast-feeding (100 %)…”

Section: Breast-feeding Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What is known about human milk bank donors around the world: a systematic scoping review

Santos

Perrin

2021

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Facilitators and Barriers of Human Milk Donation

Rojjanasrirat

Ahmed

Johnson

et al. 2023

McN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine perceptions and experiences of women who donate human milk and highlight various aspects of the breast milk donation process. Study Design: A cross-sectional descriptive study. Methods: An online survey was conducted with a convenience sample of women who donated milk at several milk banks in the United States. A questionnaire of 36 closed and open-ended items were developed and validated by the research team. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used. Semantic content analysis involved three procedures: coding, categorizing text units, and refining the identified themes. Results: A total of 236 women who donated breast milk completed the questionnaire. Mean age of participants was 32.7±4.27 and 89.40% were non-Hispanic White women with a bachelor's degree (32.20%) or graduate degree (54.70%). Most participants were women who actively donated breast milk, ranging from one to four times. Two themes, facilitators and barriers of milk donation, were identified. Facilitators to milk donation included attitudes toward milk donation, commitment for donating, motivation in donating, and support. Barriers included personal factors, environment, milk donor process, and psychosocial factors. Clinical Implications: Nurses, health care providers, and lactation professionals should educate women about milk donation resources and opportunities. Strategies to increase awareness about milk donation among underrepresented groups such as women of color are highly recommended. Future research is needed to further explore specific factors that increase milk donation awareness and minimize barriers to potential donors.

show abstract

Experiences of Women Who Donated Human Milk

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

What is known about human milk bank donors around the world: a systematic scoping review

What is known about human milk bank donors around the world: a systematic scoping review

Facilitators and Barriers of Human Milk Donation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About