The Impact of a Self-Efficacy Intervention on Short-Term Breast-Feeding Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maternal self-efficacy for breast-feeding may contribute to success in breast-feeding. This study aimed to increase breast-feeding self-efficacy and actual breast-feeding through an intervention based on Bandura's self-efficacy theory. A total of 90 pregnant women participated in the study. The women who were assigned to a breast-feeding self-efficacy intervention showed significantly greater increases in breast-feeding self-efficacy than did the women in the control group. Furthermore, at 4 weeks postpartum, women in the intervention group showed a trend toward breast-feeding their infants longer and more exclusively than did those in the control group. Greater increases in breast-feeding self-efficacy were associated with a significantly higher level of breast-feeding. Replicating previous research, breast-feeding self-efficacy was significantly related to concurrent breast-feeding behavior, and high antenatal breast-feeding self-efficacy predicted a higher level of later breast-feeding in control-group women. These findings have implications for breast-feeding support programs and for the potential general utility of self-efficacy-based interventions in health education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".