MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Economics of home vs. hospital breastfeeding support for newborns

2006· article· en· W2123370462 on OpenAlexaff
Bonnie Stevens, Denise N. Guerriere, Patricia McKeever, Ruth Croxford, Karen‐Lee Miller, Jo Watson‐MacDonell, Sharyn Gibbins, Michael Dunn, Arne Ohlsson, Karen Ray, Peter C. Coyte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineGestational ageNursingPostpartum periodHealth careFamily medicinePediatricsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This paper presents the findings of research comparing the incremental costs associated with the provision of home-based vs. hospital-based support for breastfeeding by nurse lactation consultants for term and near-term neonates during the first week of life. BACKGROUND: A consequence of both consumer demands and increasing health resource constraints is that alternative care delivery models for safe, efficacious and cost-effective breastfeeding programmes have steadily evolved. To date, the economic impact of the setting (home or hospital) where lactation support is delivered has received little research attention. METHODS: Mother-infant dyads were stratified by gestational age as term (>37 weeks gestational age; n = 101) or near term (35-37 weeks gestational age; n = 37) and randomized to standard hospital care and postpartum follow-up (standard care), or to standard hospital care plus home support from certified nurse lactation consultants (experimental). Data collection occurred at study entry, hospital discharge and at a seventh day postpartum follow-up session. Costs to the family (out-of-pocket and time costs) and to the healthcare system (during hospitalization and after hospital discharge) were measured. Total societal costs were defined as the sum of both family and healthcare system costs. RESULTS: Compared with standard hospital-based care, home support by nurse lactation consultants showed no statistically significant differences in either time costs to the family or total societal costs. Term infants who received home support had statistically significantly greater postdischarge system costs (P < 0.0001), with a trend towards lower out-of-pocket expenses to their families (P = 0.12). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in overall combined family and healthcare system costs. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the cost of home lactation support programmes were comparable with the costs of hospital-based standard care. Breastfeeding support at home by lactation consultants should be considered as an option as it was no more costly than support from lactation consultants in the hospital setting. The findings for near-term infants need to be interpreted with caution, given the small sample size.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207