Effectiveness of a Breastfeeding Self-efficacy Intervention: Do Hospital Practices Make a Difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breastfeeding self-efficacy interventions are important for improving breastfeeding outcomes. However, the circumstances that may influence the effectiveness of the interventions are unclear, especially in the context of hospitals with suboptimal infant feeding practices. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the effect of a self-efficacy intervention on breastfeeding self-efficacy and exclusive breastfeeding, and further assessed the difference in its effect by hospital-routine type. In this intervention study with a control group, 781 pregnant women were recruited from 2 "Baby-Friendly"-certified hospitals (BFH) and 2 non-Baby-Friendly Hospitals (nBFH) in Japan, and were allocated to an intervention or control group. Participants in the intervention group were provided with a breastfeeding self-efficacy workbook in their third trimester. The primary outcome was breastfeeding self-efficacy and the secondary outcome was infant feeding status. All analyses were stratified by the type of hospital, BFH or nBFH. In BFHs, the intervention improved both breastfeeding self-efficacy through 4 weeks postpartum (p = 0.037) and the exclusive breastfeeding rate at 4 weeks postpartum (AOR 2.32, 95 % CI 1.01-5.33). In nBFHs, however, no positive effect was observed on breastfeeding self-efficacy (p = 0.982) or on the exclusive breastfeeding rate at 4 weeks postpartum (AOR 0.97, 95 % CI 0.52-1.81); in nBFHs, supplementation was provided for breastfed infants and the mother and infant were separated in the vast majority of cases. Infant feeding status at 12 weeks was not improved in either hospital type. The intervention improved breastfeeding self-efficacy and exclusive breastfeeding at 4 weeks postpartum only in BFHs. When breastfeeding self-efficacy interventions are implemented, hospital infant feeding practices may need to be optimized beforehand.
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 | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".