Home versus Hospital Breastfeeding Support for Newborns: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The advantages of breastfeeding have been well established for both mothers and their infants. Existing research reports equivocal effects of early discharge and postpartum home care on breastfeeding success. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of breastfeeding support offered in hospital and home settings on breastfeeding outcomes and maternal satisfaction for mothers of term and near-term newborns who experienced standard or early discharge. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial with prognostic stratification for gestational age, 101 term and 37 near-term (35-37 weeks' gestational age) mother-newborn pairs were randomized to either a standard care group (standard care and standard length of hospitalization) or an experimental group (standard hospital care with early discharge and home support from nurses who were certified lactation consultants). Data collection occurred before randomization, at discharge from hospital, and from 5 to 12 days postpartum. Primary outcomes included breastfeeding rates and maternal satisfaction. RESULTS: More mothers of term newborns in the experimental group were breastfeeding exclusively at follow-up (p = 0.02) compared with the control group. No significant breastfeeding differences occurred among mothers with near-term newborns in the experimental and standard care groups. CONCLUSIONS: In-home lactation support appears to facilitate positive breastfeeding outcomes for mothers of term newborns. This may also be a beneficial model of postpartum care for mothers of near-term newborns; however, further research is required. The findings suggest implications for health caregivers and policy makers with respect to postpartum lactation and health care services.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".