Infant Feeding Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs Predict Antenatal Intention Among First-Time Mothers in Queensland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study assessed infant feeding knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among women from Queensland, Australia, in their first pregnancy. Antenatal feeding intention in this group was described, and the hypothesis was tested that antenatal knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about infant feeding are associated with antenatal intention for the duration and exclusivity of breastfeeding for the infant's first year. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The Feeding Queensland Babies Study is a prospective survey of infant feeding attitudes and behaviors among first-time mothers in Queensland, Australia. Data on infant feeding knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and intention were collected antenatally, and an Infant Feeding Attitudes Score was calculated. RESULTS: Although 85% of respondents endorsed breastfeeding as most appropriate for infants, 11% valued formula feeding equally. Intention to give any breastmilk during the first weeks was 98%, but it fell to 18% during the second year. More than one-quarter of women reported intention to introduce foods other than breastmilk before 5 months of infant age. The infant feeding attitudes and beliefs score correlated positively with feeding intention for breastfeeding and the introduction of complementary solids. CONCLUSIONS: Enhancing women's knowledge of recommendations and their understanding of breastfeeding's specific benefits and the reasons for recommended scheduling of feeding transitions may positively impact breastfeeding exclusivity and duration and the age-appropriate introduction of complementary solids. Communication of detailed feeding recommendations for the infant's first year and specific information about the health benefits of breastfeeding should be a goal of healthcare providers working with pregnant women.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".