PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Using a model-based analysis, we calculated the total costs associated with the exclusive breast-feeding (EBF) and breast milk substitute (BMS) usage for one infant for six months within select humanitarian contexts to (a) determine if there is a notable difference in costs and (b) use these results to inform future creation of data-informed humanitarian response standard operating procedures.
METHODS: The inputs and costing data were drawn from a mixture of local e-commerce vendors, peer-reviewed literature and personal communications with field-based humanitarian responders. To account for cost fluctuations, each input\'s costs along with low and high parameters are presented. All costs are presented in 2021 United States Dollars.
METHODS: Humanitarian responses within Indonesia and Jordan.
METHODS: Not applicable.
RESULTS: There was a notable difference in the total cost of care in both selected locations across the study arms (Indonesia: $542; Jordan: $892).
CONCLUSIONS: Given the reality of limited funding for comprehensive humanitarian response around the world and the necessity of prioritising certain interventions, humanitarian response organisations should consider the notable cost difference between EBF and BMS usage (along with the proven health benefits of EBF). This difference should play a role in informing the future creation of standard operating procedures while also ensuring that all infants within a humanitarian crisis receive appropriate feeding.
METHODS: The inputs and costing data were drawn from a mixture of local e-commerce vendors, peer-reviewed literature and personal communications with field-based humanitarian responders. To account for cost fluctuations, each input\'s costs along with low and high parameters are presented. All costs are presented in 2021 United States Dollars.
METHODS: Humanitarian responses within Indonesia and Jordan.
METHODS: Not applicable.
RESULTS: There was a notable difference in the total cost of care in both selected locations across the study arms (Indonesia: $542; Jordan: $892).
CONCLUSIONS: Given the reality of limited funding for comprehensive humanitarian response around the world and the necessity of prioritising certain interventions, humanitarian response organisations should consider the notable cost difference between EBF and BMS usage (along with the proven health benefits of EBF). This difference should play a role in informing the future creation of standard operating procedures while also ensuring that all infants within a humanitarian crisis receive appropriate feeding.
摘要：
目的：使用基于模型的分析，我们计算了在选定的人道主义背景下,1名婴儿在6个月内使用纯母乳喂养(EBF)和母乳替代品(BMS)相关的总费用,以(a)确定费用是否存在显著差异,以及(b)利用这些结果为将来创建数据知情的人道主义应急标准操作程序(SOP)提供信息.
方法：投入和成本计算数据来自当地电子商务供应商的混合，同行评议的文献，以及与实地人道主义救援人员的个人通信。考虑到成本波动，列出了每个投入的成本以及低参数和高参数。所有费用均以2021年美元（USD）表示。
方法：印度尼西亚和约旦境内的人道主义反应。
方法：不适用。
结果：在研究组的两个选定地点，护理总费用存在显著差异（印度尼西亚：542美元；约旦：892美元）。
结论：鉴于世界范围内用于全面人道主义应对的资金有限的现实以及必须优先考虑某些干预措施，人道主义应急组织应考虑EBF和BMS使用之间的显着成本差异（以及经证实的EBF对健康的益处）。这种差异应在为未来制定SOP提供信息方面发挥作用，同时确保人道主义危机中的所有婴儿都能得到适当的喂养。
方法：投入和成本计算数据来自当地电子商务供应商的混合，同行评议的文献，以及与实地人道主义救援人员的个人通信。考虑到成本波动，列出了每个投入的成本以及低参数和高参数。所有费用均以2021年美元（USD）表示。
方法：印度尼西亚和约旦境内的人道主义反应。
方法：不适用。
结果：在研究组的两个选定地点，护理总费用存在显著差异（印度尼西亚：542美元；约旦：892美元）。
结论：鉴于世界范围内用于全面人道主义应对的资金有限的现实以及必须优先考虑某些干预措施，人道主义应急组织应考虑EBF和BMS使用之间的显着成本差异（以及经证实的EBF对健康的益处）。这种差异应在为未来制定SOP提供信息方面发挥作用，同时确保人道主义危机中的所有婴儿都能得到适当的喂养。
