Bf rates uk vs us

[Silkyanduna]

Just found out my American sil is expecting and she said they only get 6 weeks maternity and that’s pretty standard for the US. This made me think how much I would have struggled to breastfeed past this point if I had had to go back to work. With the uk in comparison having pretty good maternity leave AIBU to question why the Uk breastfeeding % is lower than in the US ?

pisspawpatrol I don’t think ELCS rates in the US have much to do with the variances in maternity leave ime. I think the ELCS rates have more to do with the medicalization of pregnancy in the US that I didn’t experience in the same way the the U.K., even though my US pregnancy was very low risk and my U.K. pregnancy was higher risk, the litigious culture in the US and the corresponding cya mentality, as well as the lack of midwives causing an over reliance on doctors delivering babies and the time pressure that arises due to that.

clairemcnam My experience also echoed that of the article you posted. I lived in a very crunchy area, gave birth in the crunchiest city you can imagine, socialized with educated, wealthier, white collar professionals and breastfeeding was definitely the norm. The only people who knew who FF were blue collar types without higher education. This isn’t a judgement, just an observation.

Probably because more women actually give up work after having children in the US than the UK.

That makes sense.

Probably because more women actually give up work after having children in the US than the UK

Do you have stats on this? Anecdotally, seems more UK mothers give up work, the school run and term time seem pretty unforgiving.

I would be interested if anyone had the stats on how many UK mums give up work. I'm a sahm, by choice but I am the only one in my social circle. Where I am (Central/South East) the majority of mums seem to work.

I do know some other sahms from groups etc but having spoken to them it's less of a choice than it is for me - it's more that they usually have multiple children and it's cheaper for them to be at home than pay for childcare for all of them. There are very few who would be better off working but have chosen not to and are not supported by the state in any way.

I see a mix of bf and ff here. Doesn't seem to relate to education or work.

Most of the mums I know seem to be favouring part time. That said I'm guessing I'll maybe meet more fellow SAHPs when doing over 1 stuff with DD. One factor I've noticed with the decision to return to work is whether or not there are grandparents available for childcare.

I think it’s probably just different reporting - most likely in the US they are reporting non-breastfeeders less as they have less access to healthcare. That’s my theory anyway.

And let’s be honest, the breastfeeding thing is a correlation effect. Sibling studies show no difference. As for the pp claiming bf made a difference to obesity and diabetes- explain the high rates of this in the US then!

There’s always a lot of junk science in these threads.

Why do organisations like the NHS fall for this junk science and think breastfeeding is worth promoting? If formula has the same outcomes as breastfeeding.

@zsazsajuju not true. As I said up thread, I don't know one woman who didn't breastfeed. And the majority until 2 years.

I think it’s probably just different reporting - most likely in the US they are reporting non-breastfeeders less as they have less access to healthcare

It’s just your (wrong) speculation and no, low-income women are very well taken care of through WIC. Free food, free formula, and free breast pumps. This program has actually upped breastfeeding rates among low-income women, whose children would actually stand to benefit the most.

Recall that US water supplies are not always well managed in poor communities (Flint is not the only case, sadly). Also they tend to suffer from higher rates of asthma for reasons not entirely clear. Their mothers also simply cannot take sick days that easily.

There are many reasons why WIC is trying hard (with some success!) to encourage it.

for the pp claiming bf made a difference to obesity and diabetes- explain the high rates of this in the US then

Completely different countries and life styles. Fast food everywhere. Food is expe sive and poorer quality with more additives and fewer regulations. Larger country where most people have to drive to get anywhere resulting in less excercise. You can't like for like it. You'd need to comapre outcomes from children in the same country and same background...which they do.

As for the pp claiming bf made a difference to obesity and diabetes- explain the high rates of this in the US then!

There’s always a lot of junk science in these threads.

This is a deliciously ironic pair of comments.

Why do you think you understand the sibling studies and what they show but the NHS's top experts don't?

Someone was asking about discordant sibling studies upthread, link if it's not already been posted:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4077166/

I think the lack of trust in medical advice and research on breastfeeding isn't helping in the UK. I don't know if the US has the same culture of not trusting the establishment.

That study (which is posted on every BFing thread ever) is really important but it doesn't do everything people claim. It does demolish previous claims that BF raises IQ - which is why the NHS no longer says this. However, there are known benefits of BFing that that study didn't look at.

I don't know if the US has the same culture of not trusting the establishment

.....there are tons of Americans who absolutely do not trust doctors. Just do not think this is a factor at all.

The NHS would definitely save money if everyone breastfed from reduced infections in babies.

However this doesn't take into account the increased cost from readmitting more babies with jaundice, dehydration & low blood sugar.

So overall the NHS might lose money...similar to the arguments around elective c sections costing more money up front but saving money in the long run (through fewer pelvic floor injuries, fewer catastrophic birth injuries to babies)

There are definitely benefits to breastfeeding, but they are IMO not much to shout home about.

What is the correlation between increased breastfeeding and increases in jaundice/dehydration/low blood sugar? Is it well documented? I would like to know more about this.

Breastfeeding is a natural process with a failure rate.

A study in the US showed that exclusive breastfeeding on discharge doubled the risk of readmission to hospital: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876285917305661

If this is even slightly the case for the UK any benefit to the NHS from lower rates of infections would probably be outweighed by increased postnatal admissions

Why don't the NHS tell women that exclusively breastfeeding can double your risk of being readmitted? That's crazy. Is there a reason the NHS are ignoring research like this?

It's a bit gross how actively gleeful you are to find this new downside to breastfeeding, assassinated. You have a real hang up about it, don't you?

Nope, about 100% off the mark.

Many people in the US do not trust doctors and experts. These are probably the same people who think vaccines cause autism and essential oils can cure anything.

The Flaherman study does not say what you think it does; it shows breastfeeding success with limited and temporary formula supplementation for at-risk infants. Here is a short description of the study:

Objective

To determine whether using 10 mL formula after each breastfeeding before copious maternal milk production affects breastfeeding duration, readmission, and intestinal microbiota through 1 month of age.

Study design

In this randomized controlled trial, we enrolled 164 exclusively breastfeeding newborns, 24-72 hours old, whose weight loss was ≥75th percentile for age, and whose mothers had not yet begun mature milk production. Enrolled newborns were assigned randomly to either supplement breastfeeding with early limited formula (ELF), 10 mL of formula after each breastfeeding stopped at the onset of copious maternal milk production (intervention), or to continue exclusive breastfeeding (control). Outcomes assessed through 1 month included breastfeeding duration, readmission, and intestinal microbiota.

Results

At 1 week of age, 95.8% of infants receiving ELF and 93.5% of control infants were still breastfeeding (P > .5); readmission occurred for 4 (4.8%) control infants and none of the infants receiving ELF (P = .06). At 1 month of age, 86.5% of infants receiving ELF and 89.7% of control infants were still breastfeeding (P > .5); 54.6% of infants receiving ELF and 65.8% of controls were breastfeeding without formula (P = .18). ELF did not lead to decreased abundance of Lactobacillus or Bifidobacterium and was not associated with expansion of Clostridium.

Conclusion

In this population of healthy newborns with weight loss ≥75th percentile, ELF did not interfere with breastfeeding at 1 month, breastfeeding without formula at 1 month, or intestinal microbiota. ELF may be an important therapeutic option for newborns with the potential to reduce readmission rates

A study in the US showed that exclusive breastfeeding on discharge doubled the risk of readmission to hospital

This study was exclusively composed of at-risk infants, see study design above. It was not a random sample of infants. You cannot draw those conclusions from this particular study.

No they are 2 different studies. The readmittance one had about 100,000 cases!