Incidence and Duration of Breastfeeding for Term Infants in Canada, United States, Europe, and Australia: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Analysis of differences in the incidence and duration of breastfeeding across countries may provide information about practices that encourage breastfeeding. This comparative review examines variation in the incidence and duration of breastfeeding for term infants that has been reported in studies from Canada, the United States, Europe, and Australia. METHODS: Searches were conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE (from 1966), CINHAL (from 1982), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Studies were limited to nonexperimental and observational research that addressed term infants (>37 weeks gestational age), performed in developed countries, written in the English language, and published since 1990. Additional studies were located from reference lists of meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and previous articles. All studies that met study criteria were included in the review, regardless of the quality of methodology. RESULTS: Although studies had methodological limitations that precluded conducting a formal systematic review or meta-analysis, this comparative review revealed consistent differences among countries. For example, Europe and Australia reported a higher initiation and duration of breastfeeding term infants compared with Canada and the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Studies that examined reasons for a higher incidence and duration of breastfeeding term infants consistently document that women who initiate and continue to breastfeed are older, married, better educated, and have higher family incomes than women who do not breastfeed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".