MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067202605 · doi:10.1001/jama.286.3.322

Pacifier Use, Early Weaning, and Cry/Fuss Behavior

2001· article· en· W2067202605 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michael S. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsInstitut Philippe Pinel de Montréal
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsPacifierCryingMedicineBreastfeedingObservational studyWeaningPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialPediatricsIntervention (counseling)NursingPsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The World Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund strongly discourage use of pacifiers because of their perceived interference with breastfeeding. Observational studies have reported a strong association between pacifier use and early weaning, but such studies are unable to determine whether the association is causal. OBJECTIVES: To test whether regular pacifier use is causally related to weaning by 3 months postpartum and to examine differences in results according to randomized intervention allocation vs observational use or nonuse of pacifiers. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted from January 1998 to August 1999. SETTING: Postpartum unit of a university teaching hospital in Montreal, Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 281 healthy, breastfeeding women and their healthy, term singleton infants. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 counseling interventions provided by a research nurse trained in location counseling. The experimental intervention (n = 140) differed from the control (n = 141) by recommending avoidance of pacifier use and suggesting alternative ways to comfort a crying or fussing infant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Early weaning, defined as weaning within the first 3 months, compared between groups; 24-hour infant behavior logs detailing frequency and duration of crying, fussing, and pacifier use at 4, 6, and 9 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 258 mother-infant pairs (91.8%) completed follow-up. The experimental intervention increased total avoidance of pacifier use (38.6% vs 16.0% in the control group), reduced daily use (40.8% vs 55.7%), and decreased the mean number of pacifier insertions per day (0.8 vs 2.4 at 4 weeks [P<.001]; 0.8 vs 3.0 at 6 weeks [P<.001]; and 1.3 vs 3.0 at 9 weeks [P =.004]). In the analysis based on randomized intervention allocation, the experimental intervention had no discernible effect on weaning at 3 months (18.9% vs 18.3% in the experimental vs control group; relative risk [RR], 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-1.7), and no effect was observed on cry/fuss behavior (in the experimental vs control groups, respectively, total daily duration, 143 vs 151 minutes at 4 weeks [P =.49]; 128 vs 131 minutes at 6 weeks [P =.81]; and 110 vs 104 minutes at 9 weeks [P =.58]). When randomized allocation was ignored, however, we observed a strong observational association between exposure to daily pacifier use and weaning by 3 months (25.0% vs 12.9% of the exposed vs unexposed groups; RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3). CONCLUSIONS: We found a strong observational association between pacifier use and early weaning. No such association was observed, however, when our data were analyzed by randomized allocation, strongly suggesting that pacifier use is a marker of breastfeeding difficulties or reduced motivation to breastfeed, rather than a true cause of early weaning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations219
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicInfant Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207