Breastfeeding, baby friendliness and birth in transition in North Western Russia: a study of women's perceptions of the care they receive when giving birth in six maternity homes in the cities of Archangelsk and Murmansk, 1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Women's own views on the quality of the birthing care they received were recorded in a small study in the cities of Archangelsk and Murmansk in February 1999. Six maternity wards took part; one hospital had already been designated as a Baby Friendly Hospital (BFH) according to the strict global criteria of the WHO/UNICEF-recommended Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI). Two of the hospitals had made profound changes in feeding routines and were by their own reckoning close to achieving this distinction, and were included in the BFH group. Three maternity wards were far from being in compliance with the BFHI approach and were grouped as the Non-Baby-Friendly Hospitals (NBFH). A total of 180 newly delivered mothers answered a 60-item questionnaire about their birthing and breastfeeding experiences. The questions were chosen from an existing protocol, the WEB (Women's Experiences of Birth) developed by one of the authors (BC). The study was part of an informal evaluation of five years of BFHI activities in the Barents Region, supported by Norway, and also aimed at recording any positive carry-over effect of the BFHI into obstetric routines as a whole. CONCLUSION: It was found that the project definitely had had an impact; feeding practices at the BFH were markedly closer to the international BFHI recommendations than at the NBFH. BFH mothers, however, reported suffering from breastfeeding problems just as often or more so than NBFH mothers. Possible explanations are discussed; it is concluded that this cross-sectional study may depict a transitory situation in the BFH. At the two hospitals not yet assessed, although staff felt that they had made profound changes, they may not yet have grasped the full extent and stringency of the changes required. The study shows that, despite good will, some practical details had not yet been worked out, resulting in a mixed outcome for the mothers. There was no noticeable carry-over of the attitudes and basic ideas of the project into obstetric care, either in the BFH or in the NBFH, so changes in this area may require separate strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".