Promotion of breastfeeding intervention trial (PROBIT): a cluster-randomized trial in the Republic of Belarus. Design, follow-up, and data validation.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper summarizes the objectives, design, follow-up, and data validation of a cluster-randomized trial of a breastfeeding promotion intervention modeled on the WHO/UNICEF Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI). Thirty-four hospitals and their affiliated polyclinics in the Republic of Belarus were randomized to receive BFHI training of medical, midwifery, and nursing staffs (experimental group) or to continue their routine practices (control group). All breastfeeding mother-infant dyads were considered eligible for inclusion in the study if the infant was singleton, born at > or = 37 weeks gestation, weighed > or = 2500 grams at birth, and had a 5-minute Apgar score > or = 5, and neither mother nor infant had a medical condition for which breastfeeding was contraindicated. One experimental and one control site refused to accept their randomized allocation and dropped out of the trial. A total of 17,795 mothers were recruited at the 32 remaining sites, and their infants were followed up at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of age. To our knowledge, this is the largest randomized trial ever undertaken in area of human milk and lactation. Monitoring visits of all experimental and control maternity hospitals and polyclinics were undertaken prior to recruitment and twice more during recruitment and follow-up to ensure compliance with the randomized allocation. Major study outcomes include the occurrence of > or = 1 episode of gastrointestinal infection, > or = 2 respiratory infections, and the duration of breastfeeding, and are analyzed according to randomized allocation ("intention to treat"). One of the 32 remaining study sites was dropped from the trial because of apparently falsified follow-up data, as suggested by an unrealistically low incidence of infection and unrealistically long duration of breastfeeding, and as confirmed by subsequent data audit of polyclinic charts and interviews with mothers of 64 randomly-selected study infants at the site. Smaller random audits at each of the remaining sites showed extremely high concordance between the PROBIT data forms and both the polyclinic charts and maternal interviews, with no evident difference in under- or over-reporting in experimental vs control sites. Of the 17,046 infants recruited from the 31 participating study sites, 16,491 (96.7%) completed the study and only 555 (3.3%) were lost to follow-up. PROBIT's results should help inform decision-making for clinicians, hospitals, industry, and governments concerning the support, protection, and promotion of breastfeeding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».