<i>Barriers to Breastfeeding In a Vietnamese Community:</i> A Qualitative Exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Vietnamese women's breastfeeding experience and challenges were explored, as were their families' needs for prenatal and postpartum health professional programs and services. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in Middlesex-London, Ontario, using in-depth, semi-structured interviews in a heterogeneous sample of 11 Vietnamese mothers of children younger than two years. Diverse subject characteristics were sought in terms of parity, maternal age, infant age, marital status, education, employment, and breastfeeding initiation and duration. The 45- to 60-minute interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Research team members independently reviewed interview transcripts at several stages during data collection. Qualitative analysis was sequential, and involved a combination of editing and template organizing styles. RESULTS: Lack of knowledge and misinformation were major barriers to breastfeeding. Inability to communicate in English and a lack of effective transportation were key obstacles to the women's ability to access mainstream prenatal and postpartum health programs and services. Standard nursing prenatal and postpartum services appear not to have reached this group of mothers effectively. CONCLUSIONS: Culturally and linguistically sensitive breastfeeding promotion and postpartum support services are needed for this Vietnamese community.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".