Effect of Implementing Breastfeeding Promotion Program in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit on Newborn Weight and Breastfeeding Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mothers of very low birth weight (VLBW) infants have challenges breastfeeding their infants. Even if not intending to breastfeed, they may be encouraged to do so for short-term to protect their infants. Yet, they need consultation to assist initiation, and maintenance of breastfeeding. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of implementation of Breastfeeding Promotion Program in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) on breastfeeding practices and newborn weight. Methods: A Breastfeeding Educational Promotion Initiative Program was started in the NICU. Our targets were health care professionals, social workers and staff in the NICU as well as mothers of VLBW infants admitted to the NICU. Forty-six VLBW infants were included in the study. We compared the newborn weight and breastfeeding practices such as number of mothers’ visits, and breastfeeding rate at time of discharge from the NICU between two groups. Group A, n = 23, pre-intervention and group B, n = 23, post-intervention. Results: Infants weight at discharge and percentage increase in weight gain were more in group B which showed significant difference (P = 0.02) and (P < 0.01) respectively. Expressed breast milk per day was more in group B with significant difference (P < 0.005). The number of mothers’ visit and the percentage of breastfeeding at time of discharge were more in group B with highly statistically significant difference (P = 0.001 and 0.0001 respectively). Conclusion: Implementation of a Breastfeeding Educational Promotion Program in the NICU improved newborn weight gain and breastfeeding practices. Int J Clin Pediatr. 2014;3(2):40-45 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/ijcp159w
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".