Is Paternal Infant Care Associated with Breastfeeding? A Population-Based Study in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One qualitative study has reported that more paternal infant care and housework contributed to the maintenance of breastfeeding. However, few studies have quantitatively investigated these relationships. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the association of paternal involvement in infant care and housework with exclusive breastfeeding during the first 6 months of life. METHODS: Data from a population-based birth cohort study in Japan, the Longitudinal Survey of Babies in the 21st Century, were analyzed. We extracted information on infants who were singletons, term, normal birth weight, and living with both parents (n = 39 742). The associations between degree of paternal involvement in infant care and housework (high, middle, low) and breastfeeding patterns (exclusive, partial, formula only) were analyzed using ordered logistic regression adjusted for covariates. Maternal anxiety about childrearing was considered as a mediator. RESULTS: Compared with the low level of paternal infant care group, infants in the middle and high level groups were significantly less likely to have been breastfed (adjusted odds ratio: 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-0.97; and 0.73, 95% CI, 0.67-0.79, respectively). In contrast, the amount of housework carried out by fathers was not associated with breastfeeding pattern. Maternal anxiety about childrearing did not attenuate the association between paternal infant care and breastfeeding. CONCLUSION: Paternal infant care was inversely associated with breastfeeding during the first 6 months of life. An additional intervention study about the importance of breastfeeding that aims to educate fathers who tend to involve themselves in infant care is needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".