Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The WHO/UNICEF Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) is an effective strategy to increase breast-feeding exclusivity and duration but many countries have been slow to implement it. The present paper describes the development of a computer-based instrument that measures policies and practices outlined in the BFHI. DESIGN: The tool uses clinical staff/managers' and pregnant women/mothers' opinions as well as maternity unit observations to assess compliance with the BFHI's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding (Ten Steps) and the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (Code) by measuring the extent of implementation of two to fourteen indicators for each step and the Code. Composite scores are used to summarize results. SETTING: Examples of results from a 2007 assessment performed in nine hospitals in the province of Québec are presented to illustrate the type of information returned to individual hospitals and health authorities. SUBJECTS: Participants included nine to fifteen staff/managers per hospital randomly selected among those present during the interviewer-observer's 12 h hospital visit and nine to forty-five breast-feeding mothers per hospital telephoned at home after being randomly selected from birth certificates. RESULTS: The Ten Steps Global Compliance Score for the nine hospitals varied between 2.87 and 6.51 (range 0-10, mean 5.06) whereas the Code Global Compliance Score varied between 0.58 and 1 (range 0-1, mean 0.83). Instrument development, examples of assessment results and potential applications are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: A methodology to measure BFHI compliance may help support the implementation of this effective intervention and contribute to improved maternal and child health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".