Breastfeeding Rates and Hospital Breastfeeding Practices in Canada: A National Survey of Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative was launched by the World Health Organization and UNICEF in 1989 to promote, protect, and support breastfeeding worldwide. The objective of this study was to report breastfeeding rates and adherence to the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative of the World Health Organization and UNICEF in Canada, as reported by participants in the Maternity Experiences Survey of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. METHODS: Eligible women (n = 8,244) were identified from a randomly selected sample of infants born 3 months before the May 2006 Canadian Census, and stratified by province or territory. Birth mothers living with their infants at the time of interview were invited to participate in a computer-assisted telephone interview conducted by Statistics Canada on behalf of the Public Health Agency of Canada. Interviews took approximately 45 minutes and were completed when infants were between 5 and 10 months old (between 9 and 14 months in the territories). Completed responses were obtained from 6,421 women (78% response rate). Nineteen of 309 questions concerned early mother-infant contact and breastfeeding practices. RESULTS: Breastfeeding intention (90.0%) and initiation (90.3%) rates were high, although exclusive breastfeeding rates at 6 months after birth (14.4%) were lower than desirable. The findings suggested a low adherence to several best practices advocated by the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative. CONCLUSION: Although breastfeeding initiation rates were relatively high in Canada, exclusive breastfeeding duration fell short of globally recommended standards.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".