Peer support intervention (ABA-feed) for improving breastfeeding: UK based, multicentre, parallel group: randomised controlled trial

Citation

Jolly K, Clarke J, Crossland N, Dombrowski SU, Gkini E, Hoddinott P, Ingram J, Johnson D, MacArthur C, Mann M, McKell J, Moss N, Roberts T, Sanders J & Savory N (2026) Peer support intervention (ABA-feed) for improving breastfeeding: UK based, multicentre, parallel group: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 392, Art. No.: e086558. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2025-086558

Abstract
Objective To assess the effect of a proactive, assets based, peer support infant feeding intervention in addition to usual care on breastfeeding rates, formula feeding practices, and other outcomes, compared with usual breastfeeding support alone. Design UK based, multicentre, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Setting 17 localities in the UK that offered breastfeeding peer support as part of usual care between January 2022 and 30 April 2024. Participants 2475 nulliparous women between 20 and 35 weeks of gestation were randomised 1.43:1, to account for potential clustering by peer supporter: 1458 to the ABA-feed (Assets based feeding help Before and After birth-feed) peer support intervention and 1017 to usual care. Interventions The ABA-feed intervention comprised person centred proactive peer support for infant feeding underpinned by an assets based approach (focusing on the capabilities of, and resources available to, participants) and behaviour change theory delivered in person and remotely by text and telephone call. Usual care included universal care from midwives and health visitors and could also include services that provided reactive support such as peer supporters in breastfeeding groups, counselling, helplines, and social media support groups. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was any breastfeeding at eight weeks after birth. Secondary outcomes at eight, 16, and 24 weeks after birth included breastfeeding initiation, any and exclusive breastfeeding, formula feeding practices, anxiety, social support, and healthcare utilisation. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Results Rates of any breastfeeding at eight weeks did not differ between the intervention group (1013/1452; 69.8%) and usual care group (698/1015; 68.8%); adjusted risk difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval −0.03 to 0.04. Preplanned subgroup analyses showed no interactions between the intervention and age, prespecified feeding intentions, mother’s education, index of multiple deprivation fifth, or relationship status. Breastfeeding initiation rates were high (intervention 94.2%; usual care 92.5%). At eight weeks the intervention group reported higher social support, but this was not sustained at 16 weeks. No differences were observed in other secondary outcomes. Conclusion The ABA-feed peer support intervention did not improve breastfeeding rates compared with usual breastfeeding support in a UK context. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN17395671.

Notes
Additional authors: Alice Sitch, professor, Beck Taylor, associate professor, Sarah Tearne, trials management team leader, Gill Thomson, professor, Eleanor Williams, research fellow, Rebecca Woolley, senior statistician on behalf of the ABA-feed study group

• Peer support intervention (ABA-feed) for improving breastfeeding: UK based, multicentre, parallel group: randomised controlled trial