Effects of a Prenatal Intervention on Breastfeeding Initiation Rates in a Latina Immigrant Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomized controlled trial study design was used to investigate the effectiveness of a Healthy Families America model prenatal intervention for increasing breastfeeding rates among Latina immigrants residing in an impoverished New York City community. Exposure to the intervention did not affect mother report of any breastfeeding (ABF) during the first week postpartum, but it did affect mother report of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF). Thirty-two percent (44/137) of mothers exposed to the intervention reported EBF during the first week postpartum compared to 20% (20/101) of mothers not exposed to the intervention (odds ratio 1.92; 95% confidence interval 1.05-3.52). This positive effect of the intervention on EBF remained statistically significant after controlling for the negative effect of household income on EBF (adjusted odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.50). Additional research is needed on the effectiveness of breastfeeding promotion programs targeting low-income Latinas.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".