Which method of breastfeeding supplementation is best? The beliefs and practices of paediatricians and nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of the present study were to assess the practices of breastfeeding supplementation methods, and to explore the opinions and beliefs of health professionals with regard to breastfeeding supplementation methods and the nipple confusion phenomenon. The study was cross-sectional in design, and participants were recruited from five hospitals in Toronto, Ontario. All of the nurses and attending paediatricians in postpartum floors and level II nurseries were invited to participate in the study. A total of 87 nurses and 16 paediatricians completed the survey questionnaire. Bottle feeding was the most common breastfeeding supplementation method used in the nurseries followed by cup feeding. Only 15.0% of the level II nurses agreed that frequent bottle feeds lead to the nipple confusion phenomenon, compared with 44.4% of the postpartum nurses and 56.2% of the paediatricians. Findings demonstrated considerable variation in the practices and beliefs surrounding supplementation methods. A randomized controlled trial comparing the safety, efficiency and subsequent breastfeeding rates of different breastfeeding supplementation methods is warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".