Nina J. Berry

Circumventing the WHO Code? An observational study

Background This study compares the formula milk advertisements that appeared in parenting magazines published in two countries that have enacted measures to restrict the advertising of infant formula products in response to the international code with two that have not. Methods Content analysis was used to compare the type and frequency of formula milk advertisements that appeared in parenting magazines collected from the USA, Canada, the UK and Australia during 2007, and to examine whether there was a relationship between these frequencies and advertising regulations. Findings Advertisements that promoted formula products or brands occurred in all of the magazines sampled but the type of product advertised differed. Follow-on formula advertisements occurred more frequently in titles from the UK, where infant formula advertising is prohibited (RR 3.82, 95% CI 2.65 to 5.50, p<0.0001) than they did in titles from the USA/Canada where infant and/or follow-on formula advertising is permitted. Toddler milk advertisements appeared more frequently in titles from Australia, where infant and follow-on formula advertising is prohibited, than they did in titles from countries where direct-to-consumer infant and/or follow-on formula advertising is permitted. Rate ratios were as follows: UK only 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.11, p<0.0001); USA/Canada only 0.02 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.06, p<0.0001). Interpretation Bans on the advertising of infant formula products do not prevent companies from advertising (follow-on or toddler formula). These products are presented in ways that encourage consumers to associate the claims made in them with a group of products (a product line) that includes infant formula.

Emergency preparedness for those who care for infants in developed country contexts

Emergency management organisations recognise the vulnerability of infants in emergencies, even in developed countries. However, thus far, those who care for infants have not been provided with detailed information on what emergency preparedness entails. Emergency management authorities should provide those who care for infants with accurate and detailed information on the supplies necessary to care for them in an emergency, distinguishing between the needs of breastfed infants and the needs of formula fed infants. Those who care for formula fed infants should be provided with detailed information on the supplies necessary for an emergency preparedness kit and with information on how to prepare formula feeds in an emergency. An emergency preparedness kit for exclusively breastfed infants should include 100 nappies and 200 nappy wipes. The contents of an emergency preparedness for formula fed infants will vary depending upon whether ready-to-use liquid infant formula or powdered infant formula is used. If ready-to-use liquid infant formula is used, an emergency kit should include: 56 serves of ready-to-use liquid infant formula, 84 L water, storage container, metal knife, small bowl, 56 feeding bottles and teats/cups, 56 zip-lock plastic bags, 220 paper towels, detergent, 120 antiseptic wipes, 100 nappies and 200 nappy wipes. If powdered infant formula is used, an emergency preparedness kit should include: two 900 g tins powdered infant formula, 170 L drinking water, storage container, large cooking pot with lid, kettle, gas stove, box of matches/lighter, 14 kg liquid petroleum gas, measuring container, metal knife, metal tongs, feeding cup, 300 large sheets paper towel, detergent, 100 nappies and 200 nappy wipes. Great care with regards hygiene should be taken in the preparation of formula feeds. Child protection organisations should ensure that foster carers responsible for infants have the resources necessary to formula feed in the event of an emergency. Exclusive and continued breastfeeding should be promoted as an emergency preparedness activity by emergency management organisations as well as health authorities. The greater the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed when an emergency occurs, the more resilient the community, and the easier it will be to provide effective aid to the caregivers of formula fed infants.

When parents won't vaccinate their children: a qualitative investigation of australian primary care providers' experiences.

BackgroundIncreasingly, the experiences and perceptions of parents who decline vaccination are the subject of investigation. However, the experiences of clinicians who encounter these parents in the course of their work has received little academic attention to date. This study aimed to understand the challenges faced and strategies used when general practitioners and immunising nurses encounter parents who choose not to vaccinate their children.MethodsPrimary care providers were recruited from regions identified through the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR) as having higher than national average rates of registered objection to childhood vaccination. Interviews began with an exploration of provider experiences with parents who accept, are hesitant towards, and who decline vaccination. Participants were asked specifically about how they addressed any difficulties they encountered in their interactions. Thematic analysis focused on encounters with parents – challenges and strategies.ResultsTwenty-six general practitioners (GPs), community and practice nurses (PNs) were interviewed across two regions in NSW, Australia. Providers’ sense of professional identity as health advocates and experts became conflicted in their encounters with vaccine objecting parents. Providers were dissatisfied when such consultations resulted in a ‘therapeutic roadblock’ whereby provider-parent communication came to a standstill. There were mixed views about being asked to sign forms exempting parents from vaccinating their children. These ranged from a belief that completing the forms rewarded parents for non-conformity to seeing it as a positive opportunity for engagement. Three common strategies were employed by providers to navigate through these challenges; 1) to explore and inform, 2) to mobilise clinical rapport and 3) to adopt a general principle to first do no harm to the therapeutic relationship.ConclusionsMany healthcare providers find consultations with vaccine objecting parents challenging and some, particularly more experienced providers, employ successful strategies to address this. Primary care providers, especially those more junior, could benefit from additional communication guidance to better the outcome and increase the efficiency of their interactions with such parents.

An audit of the quality of online immunisation information available to Australian parents

BackgroundThe Internet is increasingly a source of health information for parents, who use the Internet alongside health care providers for immunisation information. Concerns have been raised about the reliability of online immunisation information, however to date there has been no audit of the quality or quantity of what is available to Australian parents. The objective of this study was to address this gap by simulating a general online search for immunisation information, and assessing the quality and quantity of the web sites returned by the search.MethodsWe used Google trends to identify the most common immunisation search terms used in Australia. The ten most common terms were entered into five search engines and the first ten non-commercial results from each search collated. A quality assessment tool was developed using the World Health Organization Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) criteria for assessing the quality of vaccine safety web sites, and used to assess and score the quality of the sites.ResultsSeven hundred web pages were identified, of which 514 were duplicates, leaving 186 pages from 115 web sites which were audited. Forty sites did not include human immunisation information, or presented personal opinion about individuals, and were not scored. Of the 75 sites quality scored, 65 (87%) were supportive of immunisation, while 10 (13%) were not supportive. The overall mean quality score was 57/100 (range 14/100 to 92/100). When stratified by pro and anti-vaccination stance, the average quality score for pro-vaccine sites was 61/100, while the average score for anti-vaccine sites was 30/100.Pro-vaccine information could be divided into three content groups: generalist overview with little detail; well-articulated and understandable detail; and lengthy and highly technical explanations. The main area found to be lacking in pro-vaccine sites was lack of transparent authorship.ConclusionOur findings suggest a need for information which is easily found, transparently authored, well-referenced, and written in a way that is easily understood.

Health and nutrition content claims on websites advertising infant formula available in Australia: A content analysis

The use of health and nutrition content claims in infant formula advertising is restricted by many governments in response to WHO policies and WHA resolutions. The purpose of this study was to determine whether such prohibited claims could be observed in Australian websites that advertise infant formula products. A comprehensive internet search was conducted to identify websites that advertise infant formula available for purchase in Australia. Content analysis was used to identify prohibited claims. The coding frame was closely aligned with the provisions of the Australian and New Zealand Food Standard Code, which prohibits these claims. The outcome measures were the presence of health claims, nutrition content claims, or references to the nutritional content of human milk. Web pages advertising 25 unique infant formula products available for purchase in Australia were identified. Every advertisement (100%) contained at least one health claim. Eighteen (72%) also contained at least one nutrition content claim. Three web pages (12%) advertising brands associated with infant formula products referenced the nutritional content of human milk. All of these claims appear in spite of national regulations prohibiting them indicating a failure of monitoring and/or enforcement. Where countries have enacted instruments to prohibit health and other claims in infant formula advertising, the marketing of infant formula must be actively monitored to be effective.

Volume marker inaccuracies: A cross-sectional survey of infant feeding bottles: Accuracy of volume markers on infant feeding bottles

A cross-sectional examination of the accuracy of volume markers on infant feeding bottles available for sale in Australia between December 2013 and February 2014 was carried out. Ninety-one bottles representing 28 different brands were examined. Eighty-eight bottles were hard sided. Volumes in these bottles were marked in a combination of milliliters and ounces. Thirty-six (41%) bottles claimed compliance with the European standard EN14350, five (6%) with non-existent Australian standards, and forty-seven (54%) bottles had no standard claim. Nineteen bottles (22%) had at least one measured marking outside the tolerance of EN14350. Bottles claiming compliance with EN14350 were not less likely to have inaccurate markings than those that made no claim. More expensive bottles did not have fewer inaccurate markings. Three bottles were disposable liner systems and had particularly large volume inaccuracies (up to 43% outside the marked volume). Inaccurate volume markers on infant feeding bottles are a previously neglected but potentially important source of error in the reconstitution of infant formula. Over-concentrated and under-concentrated infant formula can cause serious illness or malnutrition. Over-concentrated infant formula may contribute to obesity. Bottles with inaccurate volume markers are unfit for purpose; disposable liner bottles are particularly poor in this regard and should be prohibited from having volume markers on the bottle casing. To avoid individual or public harms, well-enforced standards are needed. Guidance for parents, carers, and health professionals is needed to ensure that infant formula is accurately reconstituted.

Volume marker inaccuracies: a cross‐sectional survey of infant feeding bottles

A cross-sectional examination of the accuracy of volume markers on infant feeding bottles available for sale in Australia between December 2013 and February 2014 was carried out. Ninety-one bottles representing 28 different brands were examined. Eighty-eight bottles were hard sided. Volumes in these bottles were marked in a combination of milliliters and ounces. Thirty-six (41%) bottles claimed compliance with the European standard EN14350, five (6%) with non-existent Australian standards, and forty-seven (54%) bottles had no standard claim. Nineteen bottles (22%) had at least one measured marking outside the tolerance of EN14350. Bottles claiming compliance with EN14350 were not less likely to have inaccurate markings than those that made no claim. More expensive bottles did not have fewer inaccurate markings. Three bottles were disposable liner systems and had particularly large volume inaccuracies (up to 43% outside the marked volume). Inaccurate volume markers on infant feeding bottles are a previously neglected but potentially important source of error in the reconstitution of infant formula. Over-concentrated and under-concentrated infant formula can cause serious illness or malnutrition. Over-concentrated infant formula may contribute to obesity. Bottles with inaccurate volume markers are unfit for purpose; disposable liner bottles are particularly poor in this regard and should be prohibited from having volume markers on the bottle casing. To avoid individual or public harms, well-enforced standards are needed. Guidance for parents, carers, and health professionals is needed to ensure that infant formula is accurately reconstituted.