Breastfeeding Policies and Practices in Canadian Hospitals: Comparing 1993 with 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) promotes the World Health Organization International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (WHO Code) and the WHO/UNICEF's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding (Ten Steps). The purpose of this study is to describe and compare maternity hospitals' adherence to the BFHI in 1993 and 2007 for Canada and for each province and territory. METHODS: A survey of all Canadian maternity hospitals was conducted in 1993 and 2007 on routine maternity care practices and policies including infant feeding. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 91 percent (n = 523/572 hospitals) in 1993 and 92 percent (n = 323/353 hospitals) in 2007. Eighty-two percent (415/507) of hospitals in 1993 and 68 percent (198/292) in 2007 had exclusive contracts with formula companies. Fifty-eight percent (302/517) of hospitals in 1993 and 90 percent (289/322) in 2007 never gave breastfeeding mothers sample packs containing formula. Fifty-eight percent (296/507) in 1993 and 85 percent (273/321) in 2007 had written breastfeeding policies (Step 1); 97 percent (503/518) in 1993 and 99 percent (320/322) in 2007 allowed mothers to breastfeed, on cue, whenever the babies indicated an interest 24 hours a day (Step 8); 24 percent (126/519) in 1993 and 64 percent (206/321) in 2007 reported that they did not provide soothers (Step 9); 58 percent (297/513) in 1993 and 68 percent (215/316) in 2007 always offered information on breastfeeding support groups and/or advice at time of discharge (Step 10). CONCLUSIONS: In the 14 years separating the two surveys, Canadian maternity hospitals substantially improved their implementation of the WHO Code and their adherence to the WHO/UNICEF Ten Steps.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".