World Breastfeeding Week 2025

“One Less Thing to be Worried About” – The Voices of Long-Term Users of Pasteurised Donor Human Milk

Published in Public Health

Like

Share this post

Choose a social network to share with, or copy the URL to share elsewhere

This is a representation of how your post may appear on social media. The actual post will vary between social networks

Explore the Research

massey.ac.nz
massey.ac.nz massey.ac.nz

The long-term use of pasteurised donor human milk for infant feeding : mother’s perspectives : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Health at Massey University, New Zealand

Infants have the greatest potential to thrive when provided with their optimal nutrition, breast milk (WHO, 2024). However, when faced with not being able to breastfeed for either personal, medical or environmental reasons, formula tends to be the most popular alternative feeding option that parents turn to. This could be due to accessibility issues, religious or cultural reasons, social stigma, or lack of knowledge and understanding of using PDHM. In the literature, there has been greater emphasis on researching the viewpoints of milk donor, and much less on the women receiving the milk. Although there is a benefit in understanding how women, nurses, midwives, fathers and milk donors feel about milk donation, it is vital to explore the lived experiences of mothers receiving donated milk for their infants. Within the limited capacity in which mother’s lived experiences have been explored, it is often mothers who have used PDHM short-term. Often these studies investigate the experiences of women who have used PDHM for a couple of feeds to a couple of days. As Meeks et al., (2019) explain, auditing of formula use within neonatal units (specifically in Christchurch, New Zealand), has demonstrated that late preterm infants are the greatest users of short-term formula following birth, and this has therefore been translated into this same group being the greatest users of short-term PDHM (following the opening of a local milk bank in this area). Despite the greatest use of PDHM being in the first 7-days of life, there are many scenarios where women are unable feed their own milk to their infant after this period or need to continually supplement their own milk supply. For these women, there is a lack of exploration into the experiences of mothers who have engaged with breast milk bank services and utilised PDHM long-term. These women should have their experiences, thoughts, beliefs and feelings considered to fill knowledge gaps and highlight areas of improvement for milk banks supporting long-term users. Women who use PDHM long-term may do so because of an inability or difficulty to breastfeed due to medical reasons such as previous breast surgery, receiving current cancer treatments, or taking other medications which are not proven to be safe for breastfeeding (Stanescu et al., 2019). In other scenarios, women simply cannot produce enough milk for their baby long-term. This study aims to investigate the lived experiences of mothers that have used PDHM on a long-term basis. For the purpose of this study, long-term is defined as equal to or greater than two weeks. Within the included dataset, women used PDHM from three weeks until six months. Through thematic analysis, as outlined by Braun & Clarke (2012), themes will be inductively identified, and it is hoped that these themes will shape the way that support for PDHM is offered within the maternal health space. The use of in-depth semi-structured interviews have been used to explore the physical and emotional journey of mothers who use PDHM to feed their child. To develop a comprehensive understanding of this journey, this research undertakes a narrative enquiry approach. This research has been guided by the following research questions (1) how do women describe using pasteurised donor human milk long-term? (2) how are mothers currently supported to use PDHM in a long-term sense (both from a medical and community standpoint)? (3) how does long-term use of PDHM affect their sense of being a mother? And (4) what more can be offered to women using PDHM long-term to support this part of motherhood?--From Study Justification

Enhancing breastfeeding and reducing neonatal mortality are vital to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals [1]. The World Health Organization recommends donor human milk (DHM) as the next alternative food source when a mother’s own milk (MOM) is temporarily unavailable [2]. Many women use PDHM from a couple of feeds to a couple of days, as a temporary ‘bridge’ when establishing MOM supply or whilst infant feeding issues are resolved. The use of PDHM as a long-term feeding option is less common and requires much higher volumes of human milk as well as continued engagement with human milk banking services. Reasons for long-term PDHM use include infant prematurity, maternal low/absent milk supply, supporting breastfeeding difficulties, maternal cancer/mastectomy, and maternal medication use or other health issues [3]. In 2014, the first human milk bank (HMB) was opened in New Zealand, with six active HMBs across the country [4].  In this blog post, we will highlight the findings of a study investigating the lived experience of six mothers who used PDHM from Whāngai Ora Milk Bank on a long-term basis (equal to or greater than two weeks). Narrative enquiry methodology was used to illustrate lived experiences, and human ethics approval was obtained (Ohu Matatika 1 23/23). Two of the themes emerging from women’s experiences were:

Theme one - Feeling inadequate, but coming to acceptance

Some participants described the preconceived idea that women’s bodies should automatically know how to make enough milk for a baby. When their own experience challenged this societal norm, women described feeling “less of a mother” for not “living up” to this expectation. Kaia expressed a feeling of diminished self-worth and inadequacy when she was unable to fulfil the job of breastfeeding. Additionally, she compared herself to other women who could produce breast milk and conveyed a sense of loss from their ability to do it for her baby, when she was unable to:

“It definitely made me feel less as a parent...It definitely wasn't easy. Knowing that, you know, someone else or some other people were able to feed my child, and I wasn't able to.” (Kaia)

However, over time, long-term users reported reaching a level of acceptance of their own milk supply and what they could or could not produce for their baby. For Jill, this acceptance involved her realising that she needed to regain more of her own health to support her baby:

“I was like, “I'm never going to be able to feed her enough by myself”. And it's just like, physically, it was getting really hard and mentally, it was really hard too. So, we just made the decision to cut the co-feeding and just go with the donor milk.”  (Jill)

 Theme two - PDHM supports the postpartum journey

Mother’s resolve to keep using PDHM long-term was described as stemming from a distrust of infant formula and a strong mindset of not wanting to use it. Some mothers felt this was because they had heard breast milk was the best infant feeding option, whereas others described a true fear of the ‘harms’ of infant formula or an unreliable supply.

“There's been a few too many shortages in formulas, so I didn't want to become reliant on something that I couldn't guarantee was going to be available.” (Farah)

Where PDHM was available, women could maintain their resolve to feed in line with their values, which relieved the stress and effort of constantly trying to establish breastfeeding. Farah described how using PDHM supported her and her husband as it allowed him to take on some of the feeding responsibilities and tube feed their baby while in the neonatal unit. His ability to take on feeding tasks assisted Farah’s mental health and provided bonding opportunities for him. She recognised this same outcome could essentially be achieved through using infant formula, however, she found long-term PDHM more personally acceptable. She expressed gratitude for the availability of PDHM due to her feelings of uncertainty around the formula.

“Having the donor milk, I think, took a lot of stress off me. I know the nurses could have fed him formula during the night as well, but my hubby, he could tube feed him. I know that they would have done the same with the formula, but I think just having the breast milk as an option made me feel less stressed. It was just one less thing to be worried about. I think in the back of my mind, I would have worried a little bit more about formula, and I don't think it's pragmatic and I don't know why I just would have.”  (Farah)

Nourishing hope: Long-term support with PDHM

The voices from these long-term users of PDHM convey complex emotions around how they view themselves as mothers and how PDHM supported them in their postpartum journey. Seagram & Daniluk (2008) explain how societal pressures create a narrative of what a ‘good’ mother looks like, which can be internalised by women during pregnancy or even before[5]. Part of this narrative implies a desire to breastfeed and associates a positive breastfeeding experience with ‘excelling’ as a mother. When a mother is unable to meet these expectations of herself, the result can be a pervasive loss of self, inclusive of self-identity and autonomy[6, 7]. In our study, women expressed gratitude and relief at being able to have a feeding option that aligned with their preference to feed their baby breastmilk. Long-term PDHM users also appreciated that partners and other support people can also contribute to feeding. Our study reveals the demand for positive uptake of PDHM where it is available. For long-term users, human milk banks provide holistic and compassionate care that values the emotional and social dimensions of infant feeding. This highlights the need to support milk banks’ infrastructure, integrate it into the healthcare system, and foster equitable access to protect, promote, and support women in accessing this invaluable resource for strengthening their breastfeeding journey.

References:

  1. Israel-Ballard K, LaRose E, Mansen K: The global status of human milk banking. Matern Child Nutr 2024, 20 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):e13592.
  2. Geneva WHO: WHO recommendations for care of the preterm or low-birth-weight infant. 2022.https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240058262
  3. Brown A, Shenker N: Receiving screened donor human milk for their infant supports parental wellbeing: a mixed-methods study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2022, 22(1):455.
  4. Harris S, Bloomfield FH, Muelbert M: Formal and informal human milk donation in New Zealand: a mixed-method national survey. International Breastfeeding Journal 2024, 19(1):61.
  5. Seagram S, Daniluk JC: “It Goes with the Territory”. Women & Therapy 2002, 25(1):61-88.
  6. Frankhouser TL, Defenbaugh NL: An Autoethnographic Examination of Postpartum Depression. The Annals of Family Medicine 2017, 15(6):540-545.
  7. Constantinou G, Varela S, Buckby B: Reviewing the experiences of maternal guilt - the "Motherhood Myth" influence. Health Care Women Int 2021, 42(4-6):852-876.

Please sign in or register for FREE

If you are a registered user on Research Communities by Springer Nature, please sign in

Go to the profile of Ying Jin
Ying Jin Author
about 1 year ago

This is an excellent piece of qualitative research completed by Dakota Skyes as part of the Master of Public Health Thesis. Dr Ying Jin and Associate Professor Linda Murray from Massey University, New Zealand, supervised her. This blog post added to the current literature on the impact of long-term users of pasteurised donor human milk on their breastfeeding journey - "women in accessing this invaluable resource for strengthening their breastfeeding journey". 

Follow the Topic

Public Health
Life Sciences > Health Sciences > Public Health

Related Collections

With Collections, you can get published faster and increase your visibility.

Implementing the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes: Legislation, monitoring, enforcement, advocacy

Breastfeeding is the most cost-effective intervention available to protect and promote health and well-being of children, women and populations worldwide. The evidence shows that breastfeeding save lives, reduces the burden of infectious and chronic diseases, supports optimal cognitive development, and contributes to maternal health by reducing the risk of breast and ovarian cancer, type 2 diabetes, and postpartum depression. The 2023 Lancet Breastfeeding Series has documented that scaling up breastfeeding to near universal levels could prevent over 800,000 child deaths annually and avert an estimated 20,000 maternal deaths from breast cancer each year. Beyond its individual health benefits, breastfeeding carries implications for planetary health. It is a sustainable, zero-waste, low-carb food system that requires no packing, no supply chains, and no manufacturing.

Yet despite the strong evidence, breastfeeding rates remain far below recommended levels in almost every region of the world. Among the main and well-documented barriers to optimal breastfeeding are the inappropriate marketing practices of the breastmilk substitutes (BMS). Aggressive, misleading, and pervasive commercial promotion of the commercial milk formula and related products, targeting mothers, families, and health workers through advertising, free samples, sponsorships, and increasingly through digital and social media, systematically undermines breastfeeding initiation, exclusivity, and duration.

The World Health Organization responded to this challenge more than four decades ago with the adoption of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (the Code) by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981, subsequently strengthened through multiple WHA resolutions. The Code and resolutions establish a framework to restrict inappropriate BMS marketing, protect health systems from commercial influence, and ensure that parents and caregivers receive accurate, unbiased information about infant feeding. Most recently, WHA resolution reaffirmed the urgency of regulating digital marketing of BMS and commercial foods for infants and young children.

Despite this international regulatory framework, frequent and continuous violations of the Code and of local legislation have been extensively documented globally. The 2026 WHO/UNICEF/IBFAN status report confirms that while 148 countries have enacted at least some Code-related legal measures, only 37 countries are substantially aligned with the Code, and 46 still have no legal measures. More critically, even among countries with legislation in place, implementation remains insufficient. One of the most significant and persistent gaps is the absence of clear, functional mechanism for monitoring compliance with the Code and local legislation. Equally concerning is the widespread lack of meaningful sanctions for violations. While 95 countries define sanctions, enforcement remains weak, inconsistent, and in many cases absent, allowing the BMS industry to operate with impunity. These structural failures allow unethical marketing practices to persist, undermine breastfeeding practices, and contravene obligations under international human rights instruments, including the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

The International Breastfeeding Journal invites submissions for this special collection dedicated to advancing the science, and practice of Code implementation and enforcement globally. The central purpose of this special collection is to build a comprehensive knowledge base that documents real-world experiences of Code implementation: what has been attempted, what has worked, what has failed, and what lessons can be drawn for strengthening regulatory and enforcement framework worldwide.

This special collection seeks contributions from all global regions, with particular interest in experiences from low-and-middle income countries and from context that are frequently underrepresented in international literature. We are interested not only in success experiences but also in the challenges, barriers, and setbacks that countries, institutions, and advocates have faced in their efforts to implement and enforce the Code.

We welcome original research articles, systematic and narrative reviews, and countries case studies addressing, but not limited, to the following themes:

  • National legislative processes: Experiences of the Code enactment, strengthening, and reform including political, legal, and industry-related barriers and facilitators.
  • Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms: Design, implementation, effectiveness, and outcome of compliance monitoring systems.
  • Sanctions and accountability: Experiences with the application of sanctions for Code violations, and their impact on industry behavior and breastfeeding outcomes.
  • Conflicts of interest in health systems: Evidence of industry influence on health workers, professionals’ associations, and health facilities, and strategies for protecting against commercial interference.
  • Civil society, community, and media roles in Code monitoring, reporting, and advocacy.
  • Health system protections: Implementation and enforcement of bans on free supplies, gifts, and incentives to health workers, and industry sponsorship of professional and scientific meetings.
  • Digital and social media marketing surveillance and regulation: Scope, strategies, and methodologies for detecting and documenting online and social media Code violations, and regulatory responses.

This Collection supports and amplifies research related to SDG 3, Good Health and Well-Being and SDG 2, End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

All submissions in this Collection undergo the journal’s standard peer review process. Similarly, all manuscripts authored by a Guest Editor(s) will be handled by the Editor-in-Chief. As an open access publication, this journal levies an article processing fee. We recognize that many key stakeholders may not have access to such resources and are committed to supporting participation in this issue wherever resources are a barrier. For more information about what support may be available, please visit OA funding and support, or email OAfundingpolicy@springernature.com or the Editor-in-Chief.

Publishing Model: Open Access

Deadline: Apr 30, 2027