Prevalence, self‐efficacy and perceptions of conflicting advice and self‐management: effects of a breastfeeding journal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper reports an assessment of the effects of a breastfeeding journal on breastfeeding prevalence and perceptions of conflicting advice, self-management and self-efficacy. BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding prevalence rates in most developed countries are not meeting recommendations. Women's concerns about inconsistent advice, limited involvement in decision-making, accessibility of information and inappropriate follow-up have been recognized. Research on evaluation of interventions addressing these concerns and including antenatal and early postnatal periods is required. Method. An intervention study was conducted from July 2003 to April 2004, with control and intervention groups recruited sequentially. The intervention group received a breastfeeding journal at 36 weeks antenatally in breastfeeding classes that were attended at different times by intervention and control group members. The intervention and control groups were compared during postpartum hospitalization and 12 weeks for breastfeeding prevalence and perceptions of self-efficacy, conflicting advice and self-management. FINDINGS: No statistically significant differences were noted between the intervention and control groups in breastfeeding prevalence at 12 weeks or self-efficacy during hospitalization. There was a statistically significant difference between groups in conflicting advice at both times. Although conflicting advice continues to present a dilemma for women, levels of conflicting advice did not explain breastfeeding self-efficacy. Breastfeeding self-management was a statistically significant contributor to breastfeeding prevalence prior to the addition of breastfeeding self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Women's perceptions of their ability to manage and be actively involved in decision-making explained breastfeeding prevalence at 12-week postpartum. Efforts to encourage women's involvement in decision-making about breastfeeding are a useful strategy to promote breastfeeding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".