Trial reportBMJ open2023
Is proactive telephone-based breastfeeding peer support a cost-effective intervention? A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of the 'Ringing Up about Breastfeeding earlY' (RUBY) randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mothers' experiences and perceptions of breastfeeding peer support: a qualitative systematic review.International breastfeeding journal · 2024Pooled it
- Peer support intervention (ABA-feed) to improve breastfeeding: UK based, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe 'Ringing Up about Breastfeeding earlY' (RUBY) randomised controlled trial showed increased breastfeeding at 6 months in participants who received the proactive telephone-based peer support breastfeeding intervention compared with participants allocated to receive standard care and supports. The present study aimed to evaluate if the intervention was cost-effective.
designA within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis.
settingThree metropolitan maternity services in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
participantsFirst time mothers intending to breastfeed their infant (1152) and peer volunteers (246).
interventionThe intervention comprised proactive telephone-based support from a peer volunteer from early postpartum up to 6 months. Participants were allocated to usual care (n=578) or the intervention (n=574).
main outcome measuresCosts during a 6-month follow-up period including individual healthcare, breastfeeding support and intervention costs in all participants, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
resultsCosts per mother supported were valued at $263.75 (or $90.33 excluding costs of donated volunteer time). There was no difference between the two arms in costs for infant and mothers in healthcare and breastfeeding support costs. These figures result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4146 ($1393 if volunteer time excluded) per additional mother breast feeding at 6 months.
conclusionConsidering the significant improvement in breastfeeding outcomes, this intervention is potentially cost-effective. These findings, along with the high value placed on the intervention by women and peer volunteers provides robust evidence to upscale the implementation of this intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12612001024831.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.