Infant feeding experiences of women who were sexually abused in childhood.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) on women's breastfeeding and infant feeding decisions and experiences. DESIGN: Qualitative, participatory study using semistructured in-depth interviews. SETTING: Tamara's House, a healing centre for women who were sexually abused in childhood, located in Saskatoon, Sask. PARTICIPANTS: Six mothers who were sexually abused in childhood. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was iterative and participatory. The emerging themes that resulted from initial analysis by the researchers were presented at a meeting held jointly with academics, survivors, and professionals in the field to achieve consensus. Throughout the process, findings were considered in relation to related literature on breasts, breastfeeding, and CSA. MAIN FINDINGS: History of CSA complicated the women's infant feeding decisions and experiences. For 2 women, birthing and breastfeeding facilitated healing from the effects of the abuse. Shame, touch, breasts, dissociation, medical care, and healing emerged as analytic themes. CONCLUSION: A history of CSA can affect a woman's experience of breastfeeding, including acting as a trigger for remembering or reexperiencing the abuse. Women who were sexually abused as children need to experience a sense of safety, acceptance, sensitivity, and understanding. Physicians need to be aware of the effects of CSA on infant feeding and women's health, and might need to be trained in a sensitive-practice approach to working with patients who were sexually abused as children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".