Donation barriers, enablers, patterns and predictors of milk bank donors in the United States and United Kingdom

Pasteurised donor human milk is recommended for very low birthweight infants who do not have access to their mother's milk. Although the use of donor milk continues to increase, little is known about the donation experiences of milk bank donors. We aimed to describe and compare enablers, barriers and patterns of human milk donation and identify factors predicting donation volume in a convenience sample of approved milk bank donors in the United Kingdom and the United States. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from August 2022 to December 2022. Approved milk bank donors (n = 556) from three milk banks in the United States (n = 369, Mothers' Milk Bank of Florida, Mother's Milk Bank of North Texas and Northwest Mothers Milk Bank) and one milk bank in the United Kingdom (n = 187, Hearts Milk Bank) completed the survey. A substantial portion of donors in both settings reported participating in other forms of milk exchange (51% of U.S. donors vs. 39% of UK donors, p = 0.009). Top donation barriers reported in both settings were completing the serological screening and having enough space to store collected milk. Most donors started donating when their infant was 3 months old or older and reported donating mature milk. The most common source of information related to milk banking in each setting was the internet (United Kingdom-70% vs. United States - 63%, p = 0.112). Variables that predicted lifetime donation volume differed between the United States and the United Kingdom, highlighting the importance of setting-specific milk banking research.

Comparison of Breastfeeding and Pumping Experiences of Milk Bank Donors in the United States and United Kingdom

Background/Objective: As human milk banking services expand, information about lifestyle characteristics and infant feeding experiences of milk bank donors is relatively limited. Our goal was to describe and compare milk bank donors' demographic, clinical, and lifestyle characteristics, and breastfeeding experiences in a variety of geographic settings. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from August 2022 to December 2022 with approved donors from three milk banks in the United States (n = 369), and one milk bank in United Kingdom (n = 187). Results: Donors in all settings were predominantly in their early 30s, White, married, educated, and identified as female. U.K. donors reported more frequently being on maternity leave (33% versus 5%, p < 0.001), predominantly feeding directly at the breast in the first 3 months postpartum (51% versus 28%, p < 0.001), and breastfeeding a single child longer (21.2 versus 13.3 months, p < 0.001) than U.S. donors. Significantly more U.S. donors reported pumping due to work (34% versus 11%, p < 0.001) and pumping multiple times per day (57% versus 36%, p < 0.001). Most donors reported receiving information about breastfeeding from a health care provider (94% United States and 88% United Kingdom, p = 0.022), while the internet was the most popular source of information about pumping (65% United States and 64% United Kingdom, p = 0.751). Conclusion: Factors not directly related to milk banking (e.g., maternity leave, sources of breastfeeding/pumping assistance) may have an impact on how donors feed their children and ultimately on their milk donation pattern. The impact of donor characteristics and feeding practices on donation patterns warrants further investigation.

Method for Removing Thawed Human Milk From a Plastic Storage Bag Impacts Fat Retention

OBJECTIVES

Determine how thaw stage and bag manipulation (folding and squeezing) influence the retention of fat and number of aerobic bacteria colony-forming units when decanting human milk (HM) from plastic storage bags.

METHODS

Lactating women (n = 40) in the Greensboro, North Carolina area were recruited to provide fresh HM. Samples were equally divided and frozen in storage bags for 2 months. Two thaw stages (ice/liquid) and the use of bag manipulation (yes/no) were assessed. Fat was measured using ether extraction and bacteria were measured using plate enumeration. Paired t tests were used to compare the effects of thaw stage and bag manipulation on post-thaw fat content. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare the effect of bag manipulation on pre- and post-thaw bacteria.

RESULTS

Fat retention was not significantly different when thawing to liquid versus ice (mean difference = 0.10 g/dL; n = 17 paired samples; P = 0.07). Decanting with bag manipulation retained more fat than decanting without manipulation, but only when HM was thawed to liquid (mean difference = 0.13 g/dL; n = 11 paired samples; P = 0.005), not when HM was thawed to ice (P = 0.47). Bag manipulation did not increase total aerobic bacteria for either thaw stage (P = 0.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Fat retention is influenced by the method of removing previously frozen HM from plastic storage bags. Folding and squeezing the storage bag when decanting HM thawed to a liquid state increases fat recovery without increasing bacterial contamination.