Breastfeeding Peer Support: Maternal and Volunteer Perceptions from a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have demonstrated the positive effects of peer support on various breastfeeding outcomes, but no study has assessed women's and peer volunteers' views on, or the nature and intensity of, the supportive intervention. The objective of this study was to describe maternal and peer volunteer perceptions of their experience while participating in a breastfeeding peer support trial. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of telephone-based peer (mother-to-mother) support on breastfeeding duration. Two hundred and fifty-six primiparous breastfeeding women were randomly allocated to receive either conventional care or conventional care plus peer support. Three primary outcome measures were peer volunteer activity logs, maternal perceptions of peer support, and evaluations of the peer volunteer experience. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 98.5 percent (n=130) of the mothers in the peer support group. Mothers reported their peer volunteers were available when difficulties were experienced, increased their confidence, decreased their concerns, and assisted them in reaching their breastfeeding goals. These supportive interactions resulted in 81.5 percent of mothers (n=106) being satisfied with their peer support experience and suggesting that every new mother should be offered this intervention. Similarly, all the peer volunteers interviewed (n=30) viewed their experience positively. They suggested some intervention modifications as follows: ensure that mothers enrolled in the program want peer support; provide peer volunteers with ongoing educational sessions and opportunities to "socialize" with other volunteers; and disseminate the results of peer support efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Both mothers and peer volunteers perceived their intervention experiences positively. Whereas maternal satisfaction was related to the number and duration of peer volunteer contacts, peer volunteers enjoyed their training session and the opportunity to assist mothers for a variety of reasons. Specific intervention modifications should be implemented to enhance peer volunteer satisfaction and retention.
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 | 0.027 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".