I think the BF / FF statistics could be wrong

[shirleyhyypia]

I completed a survey for the NHS recently on how DS is fed. He is exclusively BF, however the day he was born he had a 7ml syringe of formula, to help him settle, as he was sucking and sucking at my (actually rather copius) colostrum, but was still starving.

The survey asked if DS had EVER had formula, even if it was only once, and then went on to ask loads of questions, assuming he was still having it? There was a comments box where I explained, but I have a feeling that they will just look at the numbers and see that in the eyes of the survey he wasnt "exclusively" BF.

Obviously it doesnt actually matter to me, but I cant help but think that this may have something to do with why Britains BF numbers are so low???

I know FF is the trend anyway, just saying the figures might be a bit off.

Two friends had DSs at the same time as me, one BF for a few months (inc the odd bottle of F) and one FF from birth. The girl in the bed next to me in hospital BF but also gave her DS formula once (obv i dont know what happened when she went home

So even though 75% of us BF, 100% of us had given formula at some point.....
(and the OFFICIAL NHS survey doesnt distinguish between once and full blown mixed feeding)

DreamTeamGirl - that's shocking. It wasn't this board that said those mad things was it? What exactly did they say?

Its just occurred to me that 7ml is less than 1.5 teaspoons. Have no idea why the hospital would think he needed such a small amount.

In hindsight, I wouldnt have let them give it to him.

Maybe he wouldnt have an eye infection now if I hadnt :(

Esp as he WAS having colostrum anyway! I had pints of the stuff from about 6 months preg!!

theexample - it's got nothing to do with pendantry.

Statistics collecting has to obey the rules and the agreed definitions.

If a mother is asked 'has your baby had any formula?' then if the answer is 'yes' then the record will show the baby is not exclusively breastfed.

This should not affect her feelings about the experience at all - the definition number-collectors and crunchers have to follow have zero to do with 'pedantry', and everything to do with consistency.

I hate people to be upset - they should come to this board to feel boosted and to have confidence in their feeding . Labels do not matter.

I understood what you meant Shirley - talking about how poor breastfeeding rates are and that almost no one exclusively breastfeeds for 6 months does make it seem like breastfeeding is unusual, whereas in reality I don't know anyone who didn't breastfeed. Whether it was for 3 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months plus.

I also don't think anyone suggested the OP "failed" because her baby had formula - they were questioning the care they got from the hospital/HCPs involved if formula was given on day 1.

shirleyhypia - this was not your fault. Very few post natal mothers have the necessary fight in them, if someone tells them their baby needs supplementing.

It's excellent you were surveyed, and the correct info put down - this way, policy makers and other researchers see how maternity units fail to support breastfeeding women, even right at the start.

No baby is 'starving' on day one - truly they are not. Your baby may have been upset but it would not be because he was starving. But the maternity unit should have enabled you to avoid formula in other ways - NOT YOUR FAULT.

ISNT - let me clarify, too.

You said "No this point about "making mums feel better" if their baby has had any formula ever - indicates strongly that there is something very wrong with babies having had any formula ever."

No, that is not what I meant. At all. People - including you - were posting saying that surveys should call women whose babies had had formula exclusive breastfeeders because a small amount of formula should not change the label and they felt bad their label was changed.

I took my lead about 'making mums feel better' from these posters, including you.

I explained that statistical surveys are not in the business of making mothers feel better, but they are in the business of recording facts.

From there, you leap to saying that people don't regard you as being a 'real breastfeeder' and that you are supposedly deluding yourself because you did feed, and yet people think you didn't.

Get a grip :) :)

ISNT - just to add, I am upset if I upset you! I was absolutely not criticising you in any way let alone saying you did not 'really' breastfeed :(

Shirley - Stop it . You have done fantastically. It is just tick boxes on a survey! I know of no study whatsoever that links breastfeeding to eye infections (other than that breast milk can help clear them up). A few ml of formula is highly highly unlikley to have had any effect whatsoever - and besides, your baby has still had much much more breast milk and much much less formula than the vast majority of babies in the UK. If a few ml of formula caused eye infections we would all be bumping into each other because no one would be able to see

And FWIW I introduced solids to DS at 19 weeks so he wasnt EBF for 6 months. He is unfortunately absolutely fine and driving me mad this afternoon.

Incidentally his EBF for 6 months sister is ill in bed. It is statistics and practices they are interested in.

We really do torture ourselves aiming for perfection sometimes! Good enough is good enough imo.

Oh, God, I missed shirley worrying about the eye infection.

I swear the 10 drops or whatever of formula your baby had on day 1 will not have contributed to your baby's eye infection in any way.

FF does increase the risk of infection (though I don't know if anyone has looked at eye infection) but it is a 'dose sensitive response' ie the more formula, the greater the risk.

In any study looking at links with FF and infection, and not actually collecting stats for survey purposes, your baby would be exclusively bf.

10 drops will be off the bottom of the scale :)

When I was asked if dd was still bf at 6 weeks I said no as we were mixed feeding at about 60/40 bf/ff at that point.
I thought they meant exclusively bf only counted. I have wondered since whether some bf would have counted.
I have also met people who say they are bf even when they give 1 bottle of formula a day. When do you say mixed/bf ??
QUite confusing all round I agree.

I always say breastfeeding although ds has some formula, up to a bottle a day. If I was asked if I'm exclusively breastfeeding I'd say no, but asked if I'm breastfeeding I'd say yes.

Tiktok I never posted that. I said this

"Totally agree, and often bring this up on threads when the stats are mentioned. Because the stats that are usually used are the exclusively BF ones, and as you say, they exclude loads of people who are actually BF. My DD1 had a sip of formula at about 5 weeks (she didn't ever have any more, she didn't like it) and I BF her until 14 months. But on exclusive BF stats she would not show up.

There is a link with the figs I'l find it for you now."

"So when you look at the ex bf rates I think it gives an unduly gloomy picture of what's going on. At 6 months - it's the difference between negligible (no-one) and 1 in 4 mothers, which is a hugely different picture. The initiation rates also show that most mothers give it a try - I think the reason rates are low is down to lack of support rather than anything else. The focus on pre-natal education here is wrong I think - women have got the message, they just aren't getting the support to follow through on it."

Where on earth did I say that women who have given substances other than breast milk should show up in the exBF stats? That would be completely stupid.

I read the OP as making the same point. That exBF stats in the UK represent an incomplete picture of actual BF going on in the UK.

It's a perfectly valid point to make IMO, I have made it on other threads and never got any of this.

tiktok
No it wasnt on this board

I cant recall exactly what was said, but I asked what to do as he wouldnt take my milk and whether I should pump & dump, and how long it might take for my milk to taste right again after the abs finished- and yes for some reassurance I guess

And I was replied to my a few people saying they couldnt reassure as the 'damage is done' and linking me to a page (I think Kellymom) where it said that

I asked if I could 'repair' it and was told damage was done and it was permanent

So I chucked a strop, burst into tears and stormed off thinking 'whats the point'

2 weeks down the line, I was feeling well again, but milk had started to go and I felt 'whats the use' ...
Easy to be rational now, but in those early days you are so unsure arent you?
Thank you for asking anyway

Figures on exclusive breastfeeding give a picture of how many women in the UK are exclusively breastfeeding (by the researchers definition).

If you want to know about women who are breastfeeding, but have/are using formula then you look at the figures for that.

The figures arent misleading, just shouldnt be taken as meaning more than they actually do.

Nine out of 10 babies fed on formula do alright. About one in 10 are hospitalized in the UK through illnesses such as gastroenteritis ear infections and chest infections in the first year of life. if you access unicef baby friendly webpages they publish summaries of research projects which show the risks of not breastfeeding. It is not to say that breastfed babies wont get ill but they get ill less often if they are breastfed. and that means any breastfeeding so one breastfeed a day can still have an impact. I think the new start for life leaflet "off to the best start" highlights the risks of not breastfeeding HTH

Not sure what that has to do with this thread leipoet

I don't think the figures on exclusive breastfeeding are misleading at all - they are what they are!

Maybe rather than "Breast is Best" as a slogan, "Breastfeeding is Normal" is more encouraging - pointing out that most babies are breastfed to some extent and emphasizing that any breastfeeding is good for your baby, whether it's for a couple of weeks, or two feeds a day or every feed.

I honestly think that if a child has has so little formula (ie the once or twice some people have cited) then they should count as fully breastfed. Unless the researchers are trying to do a longitudinal study on the effect of absolutely exclusive breastfeeding (in which case they should state in the question that they mean truly nothing but breast milk has passed the baby's lips) then being exclusively breastfed but for a couple of occasions should be good enough for their purposes.

OP do not in anyway feel guilty about the fact that your DS had formula. The hospital thought they were doing the best for him I'm sure (even if objectively it seems a slightly strange decision of theirs) and you trusted them to do the best for him. Formula is NOT poison (they wouldn't sell very much of it if it were), it a very good and immensely above average (consider the evaporated milk + sugar or untreated goat's milk many of our parents and g parents were fed) substitute for human milk.

duchesse

It is important that the criteria are clear so that the figures are easily understood, and compared.

Otherwise where do you draw the line?

Shirley I understand how you feel, DS1 had a couple of formula top ups in hospital due to concerns about his blood sugar levels. I then went on to feed him until his 1st birthday, exclusively for the first six months. It was no mean feat as I returned to work at 8 weeks. It bothered me for a very long time that I had put in all the effort and didn't get the official title. In the end I came to terms with it by thinking of the formula as medicine. I'll never know if it was truly needed, but obviously like to think it was. I have to admit though that it was at the back of my mind when I refused a formula top up for DS2. Seriously though don't beat yourself up over it, you will make a million other decisions which will have far greater impact. All we can do is our best.

On a similar note, when asked whether DS1 was still getting any breastmilk at 1 when DH took him for his MMR, DH said 'no' as I had given him his last feed the day before his birthday!!! I still have to skip that page in his red book!

I think the statistics thing is interesting, and OP I do see your point, but, I think the way they record the data is correct

I agree that a baby who has had any formula at all is not excl bf, though I am not saying that that is a bad thing

I excl bf 4 of my children, my 5th had 10mls of formula the day after he was born (and promptly threw it all back up again) and then had nothing but breastmilk till 6 months, but I do not consider him to be an excl bf baby. I regret backing down over the formula but I don't beat myself up about it, it was a minor blip in our breastfeeding relationship

Of course the 'excl bf' stats give an incomplete picture of bf in the UK.

But we have stats within the same survey (Infant Feeding surveys - going back to 1980) which show 'prevalence of bf' which is any bf.

You can't complain the excl bf stats are misleading - they are what they are. If you want to know something else, then obv the excl bf stats wont tell you. If you want to know how many babies are being bf, then see the prevalence (or 'any' bf) stats.

ISNT - you took massive umbrage and imagined that people were suggesting you weren't a real breastfeeding. For some reason!