Cost-benefit analysis of a multicomponent breastfeeding promotion and support intervention in a developing country

TL;DR

This study shows that a breastfeeding promotion program in Lebanon is cost-effective and improves infant health over two years.

Contribution

The study provides new evidence on the economic benefits of a multicomponent breastfeeding intervention in a developing country.

Findings

The intervention had a benefit-cost ratio of 2.44 at one year and 2.82 at two years.

Exclusive breastfeeding was linked to fewer infant illnesses and lower healthcare costs.

Breastfeeding infants had better health outcomes compared to those on artificial milk.

Abstract

Studies on breastfeeding promotion and support interventions suggest some economic benefits. This study assessed the direct and indirect costs of a multicomponent breastfeeding promotion and support intervention during the first two years of the infant’s life.

This is a cost-benefit analysis of data generated from a randomized controlled trial that investigated whether provision of a multicomponent breastfeeding promotion and support intervention to Lebanese mothers in the first six months postpartum would improve breastfeeding rates compared to standard obstetric and pediatric care. Data of 339 participants on sociodemographics, mother and infant health, infant nutrition, direct and indirect costs of the intervention were used to assess the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the intervention at one, six, 12, and 24 months as primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included overall costs of infant nutrition and infant-mother dyad health costs during the first two years. Multiple linear regression models explored the effect of the intervention on the overall infant nutrition cost and mother-infant health costs. Similar regression models investigated the association between cost variables and infant nutrition types (exclusive breastfeeding, mixed feeding, artificial milk). Intention to treat analyses were conducted using SPSS (version 24). Statistical significance was set at a p-value below 0.05.

The prevalence of Exclusive/Predominant breastfeeding among participants declined from 51.6% in the first month to 6.6% at the end of second year. The multicomponent breastfeeding intervention incurred 485 USD more in costs than the control group during the first six months but was cost-efficient at one year (incremental net benefits of 374 USD; BCR = 2.44), and two years (incremental net benefits of 472 USD; BCR = 2.82). In adjusted analyses, the intervention was significantly associated with fewer infant illness visits in the first year (p = 0.045). Stratified analyses by the infant nutrition type revealed that infants who were on Exclusive/Predominant, or Any Breastfeeding had significantly more favorable health outcomes at different time points during the first two years (p<0.05) compared to infants receiving Artificial Milk only, with health benefits being highest in the Exclusive/Predominant breastfeeding group. Moreover, Exclusive/Predominant and Any Breastfeeding had significantly lower costs of infant illness visits, hospitalizations, and infant medications during the two years (p<0.05) but had additional cost for maternal non-routine doctor visits due to breastfeeding (all p values <0.05). Whereas the overall cost (direct and indirect) during the first six months was significantly lower for the Exclusive/Predominant breastfeeding infants (p = 0.001), they were similar in infants on Mixed Feeding or Artificial Milk.

Breastfeeding is associated with significant economic and infant health benefits in the first two years. In the context of the current economic crisis in Lebanon, this study provides further evidence to policymakers on the need to invest in national breastfeeding promotion and support interventions.

Figures