Avaliação da promoção do aleitamento materno nas maternidades públicas e privadas do Município de São Paulo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) carried out a study to compare and evaluate the practices of protecting, promoting and supporting breastfeeding in public and private hospitals using the "ten steps" of the Hospital Initiative (BFHI) as a reference parameter. METHODS: Forty-five hospitals of the municipality of São Paulo participated in the study. Data on the practices of infant feeding were collected by interviewing nurseries' supervisors of all public hospitals (26), and from a random sample of private hospitals (19), corresponding to a third of the total, during the years 1996-1997. RESULTS: More than a quarter of the public hospitals and more than one third of the private hospitals did not comply with any of the BFHI steps. Seven of the "ten steps" were observed in only two public hospitals. In general, practices of protection, promotion, and support of breastfeeding were seen at a higher frequency in public hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that practices considered detrimental to the onset and progressing of breastfeeding - unnecessary separation of the mother and her newborn, restrictions regarding the length of time and frequency of breastfeeding, use of pre-lacteal foods and supplements - are still quite frequently observed in public and private hospitals within the city of São Paulo. Given the benefits of breastfeeding for both the mother's and their children's health, and the important role maternities play for an early and successful onset of breastfeeding, it is paramount that the BFHI patterns be adopted by hospitals within the municipality of São Paulo.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".