MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W121722541

Promotion of breastfeeding intervention trial (PROBIT): a cluster-randomized trial in the Republic of Belarus. Design, follow-up, and data validation.

2000· article· en· W121722541 on OpenAlexaff
Michael S. Kramer, Beverley Chalmers, Ellen Hodnett, Zinaida Sevkovskaya, Irina Dzikovich, Stan Shapiro, Jean‐Philippe Collet, Irina Vanilovich, I Mezen, Thiérry Ducruet, George Shishko, V. K. Zubovich, D Mknuik, E Gluchanina, Vladislav Sergeevich Dombrovsky, A Ustinovitch, Tai-Chuan Ko, Natalia Bogdanovich, L Ovchinikova, Elisabet Helsing

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingRandomized controlled trialMedicineBreastfeeding promotionPediatricsFamily medicineCluster (spacecraft)Cluster randomised controlled trialIntervention (counseling)ObstetricsNursingSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207