Cell phone based peer counselling can support exclusive breastfeeding: a randomized controlled trial in Kenya (119.5)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To test whether exposure to community‐based continuous cell phone based peer support (CPS) or monthly peer‐led support groups (PSG) increases adoption and duration of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF), as compared to current standard of facility‐based support (Control). Methods: We randomized low‐income women attending antenatal care at a large hospital to receive one of three support strategies from late pregnancy (32‐26 weeks) to 3 months postpartum: CPS, PSG or Control. We compared EBF estimated by maternal 24 h recall of infant foods at 3 months age by intervention group. Results: Participant flow was adequate for power (753 women enrolled, 81% of eligible; 504 infants completed, including twins, 66.6%). Both interventions were associated with a higher proportion of EBF CPS: 90.9%, PSG: 82.8%, Control: 78.2%, p=0.007). Pairwise comparisons of 24 h EBF indicated a significant association of CPS with an 12.7% higher prevalence than Control (90.9 versus 78.2, a 16.2% greater EBF response rate than Control; Chi‐square = 9.8201, p=0.0017) and an 8.1% higher prevalence than PSG (90.9 versus 82.8, a 9.8% greater EBF response rate than PSG; Chi‐square = 4.5768, p=0.0324). Differences could not be attributed to baseline indicators, dropout rates or biases, prevalence and timing of breastfeeding initiation, or EBF prevalence one week after birth. They may be attributed to the frequency of advice. Conclusions: Cell phone based counselling approaches can be at least as effective in supporting EBF as peer support group and facility‐based approaches. Supported by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to FHI 360, through the Alive & Thrive Small Grants Program managed by UC Davis; Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition; Canada Research Chair program award.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".