An Assessment of the Impact of Breastfeeding Clinic Attendance on Women's Breastfeeding Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breastfeeding clinics aim to increase breastfeeding duration and diminish breastfeeding difficulties. Actual improvement in the duration and satisfaction of the breastfeeding experience for women using these clinics remains unknown. This observational study assessed the impact of a Québec City breastfeeding clinic's interventions on breastfeeding duration and satisfaction among women experiencing breastfeeding difficulties in comparison with women who did not receive clinic services. The study surveyed 86 women using telephone questionnaires and semistructured interviews. After adjusted logistic regression analysis, women who attended the clinic had a higher probability of breastfeeding for at least 6 months (odds ratio [OR] = 4.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.35-13.96) than women from the comparison group. They also had a higher probability of being satisfied with their breastfeeding experience (OR = 4.17; 95% CI = 1.31-13.22). Physical and moral support could explain this influence. Larger studies on breastfeeding clinics are needed to confirm their role in enhancing breastfeeding duration and satisfaction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".