Expansion of the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding into Neonatal Intensive Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the World Health Organization/United Nations Children's Fund document Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative: Revised, Updated and Expanded for Integrated Care, neonatal care is mentioned as 1 area that would benefit from expansion of the original Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding. The different situations faced by preterm and sick infants and their mothers, compared to healthy infants and their mothers, necessitate a specific breastfeeding policy for neonatal intensive care and require that health care professionals have knowledge and skills in lactation and breastfeeding support, including provision of antenatal information, that are specific to neonatal care. Facilitation of early, continuous, and prolonged skin-to-skin contact (kangaroo mother care), early initiation of breastfeeding, and mothers' access to breastfeeding support during the infants' whole hospital stay are important. Mother's own milk or donor milk (when available) is the optimal nutrition. Efforts should be made to minimize parent-infant separation and facilitate parents' unrestricted presence with their infants. The initiation and continuation of breastfeeding should be guided only by infant competence and stability, using a semi-demand feeding regimen during the transition to exclusive breastfeeding. Pacifiers are appropriate during tube-feeding, for pain relief, and for calming infants. Nipple shields can be used for facilitating establishment of breastfeeding, but only after qualified support and attempts at the breast. Alternatives to bottles should be used until breastfeeding is well established. The discharge program should include adequate preparation of parents, information about access to lactation and breastfeeding support, both professional and peer support, and a plan for continued follow-up.
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 | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
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".