Hands-on approach during breastfeeding support in a neonatal intensive care unit: a qualitative study of Swedish mothers' experiences.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assisting mothers to breastfeed is not easy when babies experience difficulties. In a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), nurses often help mothers by using hands-on-breast without their permission. Little is known about how mothers feel about this unusual body touching. To gain more knowledge from mothers who lived through this experience, this hands-on practice was studied in a NICU in Sweden. METHODS: Between January and June 2001, in-depth interviews were conducted with ten mothers of preterm or sick term infants and all of them experienced the hands-on approach. In this research, Radnitzky's seven principles of hermeneutic interpretation were applied in order to interpret the meaning of mothers' responses. This article presents results related to the period of initiation of breastfeeding. This qualitative study was based on a combination of the models of Gustafsson, Orem, and Aarts' Marte Meo. RESULTS: Five main themes were identified: Insult to integrity, Manipulating the baby, Understanding and adjustment, Breasts as objects, Alternatives to this practice. Hands-on help in the breastfeeding situation was experienced as unpleasant and the women experienced their breasts as objectified. The mothers accepted the hands-on help given by nursing staff, even though they considered it unpleasant. Most mothers expressed a need for assistance when starting breastfeeding, but could not suggest any alternative to hands-on help such as demonstrating with an artificial breast and a doll. CONCLUSION: The study provides information about how mothers experience unexpected hands-on help with breastfeeding in a NICU, which has not been described previously. Since most mothers in this study regarded this behavior as unpleasant and not helpful mostly because it was unexpected and unexplained, it would be important to either explain beforehand to mothers what type of physical approach could be attempted on their body or better, to avoid this type of approach completely.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".