Prevalence and Predictors of Exclusive Breastfeeding at Hospital Discharge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the population-based prevalence and predictors of exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge in singleton and twin term newborns. METHODS: We studied all hospital births in the province of Ontario, Canada, between April 1, 2009, and March 31, 2010, to perform a retrospective cohort study. We included live singleton and twin births, at term (37 0/7 weeks of gestation to 41 6/7 weeks of gestation), with information about feeding at maternal-newborn discharge. Descriptive statistics were performed and logistic regression was used to identify factors related to exclusive breastfeeding. RESULTS: Our study population consisted of 92,364 newborns, of whom 56,865 (61.6%) were exclusively breastfed at discharge. Older, nonsmoking, higher-income mothers with no pregnancy complications or reproductive assistance were more likely to breastfeed. Mothers of twins were less likely to exclusively breastfeed (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.36) as were women who did not attend prenatal classes (adjusted OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.76-0.83). Compared with patients of obstetricians (57%), women cared for by midwives (87%, adjusted OR 4.49, 95% CI 4.16-4.85) and family physicians (67%, adjusted OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.47-1.61) were more likely to exclusively breastfeed. Breastfeeding after a planned (50%, adjusted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.52-0.60) or unplanned (48%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.44-0.51) cesarean delivery was less common than after a spontaneous vaginal birth (68%). Neonates born at 39, 38, and 37 weeks of gestation (compared with 41 weeks of gestation) were increasingly less likely to breastfeed (adjusted ORs 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.98; 0.84, 95% CI 0.80-0.88; and 0.71, 95% CI 0.67-0.76). CONCLUSION: This large population-based study found that fewer than two thirds of term newborns are exclusively breastfed at hospital discharge, substantially lower than previously reported. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".