Although most African women living with HIV in the UK do
comply with medical recommendations to avoid breastfeeding, doing so comes at a
high social and personal cost, according to qualitative research presented to
the British HIV Association conference last week. There are considerable
structural, cultural and personal barriers to formula feeding, reported Dr
Shema Tariq of City University.
Whereas women living with HIV in resource-limited settings
are advised to breastfeed their babies (because of the unavailability of clean
water supplies), the advice in resource-rich settings is to bottle-feed with
powdered milk formula. This reduces the risk of passing on HIV to the child,
although in the context of antiretroviral therapy and an undetectable viral
load, there are questions about how risky breastfeeding would be.
Furthermore, health information for the general population
in the UK – which women living with HIV are frequently exposed to – usually
states that ‘breast is best’.
Women who have grown up in African countries and have
migrated to the UK or other western countries must therefore grapple with
conflicting messages and expectations. Women frequently maintain significant
social connections with other African people, both in the diaspora and their
country of origin.
Very little research has explored the impact of infant
feeding decisions on migrant mothers living in resource-rich settings (although
a Canadian study
was presented last year). Researchers in London therefore conducted in-depth
qualitative interviews with 23 African women living with HIV who were pregnant
or had recently given birth. In addition, six professionals (clinicians,
midwives, voluntary sector workers) were interviewed.
With one exception, all the women were exclusively bottle-feeding
or intended to. However women had to overcome a number of barriers in order to
do so.
“That’s what really
make me feel sad because our culture in Africa you’re supposed to breastfeed.”
There was a widespread expectation – from both the women
themselves and from other members of their communities – that breastfeeding was an
essential aspect of being a woman and a mother. There could be considerable
pressure from other people to breastfeed. This didn’t just come from friends or
relatives. If the baby cried, strangers on a bus could even forcibly suggest
that he or she should be put to the breast.
Women feared that formula feeding would lead to unwanted
disclosure of their HIV status. This could include disclosure to the baby’s
father.
Most of the interviewees were extremely poor and formula
milk was very expensive for them. Although BHIVA recommend that free formula
milk and feeding equipment be supplied in this situation, resources were not
always available.
When bottle-feeding, women frequently felt that they were
missing out on bonding with their baby, and felt a sense of personal loss.
Moreover many were anxious about their child’s health, concerned that he or she
would miss out on the health benefits of breastfeeding that are extolled in
mainstream health information for mothers.
Moreover, in order to avoid unwanted disclosure and
stigmatisation, many women isolated themselves and stayed away from social
interactions.
In order to face these challenges, Dr Tariq says that women
required considerable resilience. The most important of the resources that they
drew upon was the knowledge that they were safeguarding their baby.
“The most important
thing is my child not having it [HIV], you understand? If there’s anything
that’ll make them not have it, why wouldn’t I do it?”
Although many of the fathers were absent or semi-absent,
when they were present and supportive, this was extremely important. Knowing
other mothers who had given birth to HIV-negative babies was also valuable.
Women deployed creative excuses to explain why
they weren’t breastfeeding, for example saying that they had mastitis or had
recently taken antibiotics. When provided, free formula milk and feeding
equipment were of considerable help.
Conflicting information
Two further posters at the conference, both from Dr Mags
Portman, Dr Durba Raha and colleagues at Leeds Teaching Hospitals, shed further light on infant feeding choices.
The first drew attention to the confusing nature of the
health information that women may consult. Every month, approximately 2900
Google searches on HIV and breastfeeding are requested. Moreover, around 320 of
them come from the UK.
The clinicians entered a series of phrases such as ‘HIV
breastfeeding’, ‘HIV breastfeeding transmission’ and ‘I am HIV positive can I
breastfeed’ into Google. Both the worldwide and UK versions of Google were
used, and 19 of the most frequently occurring links were examined.
Seven of the 19 were news reports, eight were websites
giving advice and four were links to policy documents.
Among the most commonly returned pages were a BBC news
report titled ‘Breastfeeding alone cuts HIV risk’, a page from the HIV
information charity AVERT and a page from UNICEF.
A major issue was that it was not always immediately clear –
if at all – that a page was giving advice that was relevant to resource-limited
settings and that recommendations would be different in resource-rich settings.
This was the case with pages from internationally respected bodies such as the
World Health Organisation, the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control and UNICEF.
In four of the 19 pages, the initial impression from the
headline was straightforwardly supportive of breastfeeding.
While some of the pages were high quality and well
referenced, three of the pages contained misleading information, such as Metro’s claim that “a mother’s breast milk can stop a baby contracting
HIV”, based on this unhelpful university press release (the fourth most commonly returned page in December 2012).
The next poster outlined the experience of two women who,
after extensive discussion with their healthcare team, decided to breastfeed. Both
were on therapy, had an undetectable viral load and had already had children.
The first had heard encouraging stories from friends in her country of origin
who had breastfed – she said it made her feel like a ‘real mum’. The second mother felt that
breastfeeding helped her bond with her child (something she felt she hadn’t
been able to do with her first child, who was delivered via caesarean section
and formula fed).
Both switched to formula feeding after five to six weeks due
to the development of mastitis in the first case, and after viral load was
found to be detectable (51 copies/ml) in the second case. Definitive HIV
testing results for the two babies are still outstanding.
Finally, Portman outlined points that healthcare workers
should discuss with women considering breastfeeding:
- There is no HIV transmission risk during
bottle-feeding; during breastfeeding it may be between 1 and 3%.
- The content of the BHIVA and CHIVA
position statement.
- Its specific recommendations that if women do
breastfeed, there should be no mixed feeding and that breastfeeding should last
for the shortest time possible.
- There may be HIV present in breast milk when it
is undetectable in blood. More research is needed.
- Similarly, the long-term impact of taking
antiretroviral therapy as a baby, including through breast milk, is unknown.
- A discussion of benefits and risks – short-term
gains (less respiratory illness and diarrhoea; mother’s emotional wellbeing)
compared with the long-term consequences of HIV infection.
- How the woman would feel if HIV transmission
occurred.
- Consequences of HIV infection as a child, rather
than as an adult – possibility of developing drug resistance early in life;
poorer life expectancy; difficulties of dealing with HIV status during
adolescence.
- Dealing with social pressure, stigma and
unwanted disclosure if bottle-feeding.
- If the woman has any doubts about breastfeeding,
health professionals’ default position should be that she does not breastfeed.