Effectiveness of Exclusive Breastfeeding Promotion in Low-Income Mothers: A Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a breastfeeding promotion program in the Women, Infant and Children (WIC) Supplemental Nutrition Program participants. STUDY DESIGN: This randomized clinical trial included 52 women in the intervention group who received one-to-one pre- and postnatal breastfeeding education and support from a lactation consultant. Women (n = 52) randomized to controls received standard breastfeeding services. Data regarding their infants' feeding (classified as exclusive, partial, and bottle) during the first 7 days, 1, 2, and 3 months of age were compared. Additionally, the mothers were surveyed to assess their knowledge, attitude, and beliefs regarding breastfeeding. RESULTS: Among the 104 enrolled women, 91 (87.5%) were Hispanic. Almost all the pregnant women had planned to breastfeed their infants. Although the majority of women reported breastfeeding their infants, 45.6% in the intervention group and 28.9% of controls practiced exclusive breastfeeding during the first 7 days. By 3 months, the rate of exclusive breastfeeding in the intervention and control groups had dropped to 13.9% and 10.5%, respectively. Parity, mode of delivery, previous experience with breastfeeding, rooming in, and return to work did not significantly affect the exclusive breastfeeding rate. Maternal knowledge, attitude, and beliefs regarding breastfeeding were comparable between the study groups at the baseline stage as well as 3 months postpartum. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the proposed breastfeeding promotion program by the low-income mothers was associated with an insignificant increase in the exclusive breastfeeding rate during the first 3 postpartum months.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".