The experience of nursing women with breastfeeding support: a qualitative inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding difficulties are a common occurrence, are highly personal and can vary from one infant to the next for any mother. Multiple sources of support, help and advice for breastfeeding are available to nursing mothers. Evidence suggests that the experience of the quality of breastfeeding supports may play an important role in maternal mental health and well-being in the postpartum period. We sought to explore the experiences of nursing mothers with support they received for breastfeeding in order to better inform and optimize existing breastfeeding supports and interventions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative inquiry of nursing mothers' experiences with help, advice and support for breastfeeding. Participants were asked to provide open-ended, written accounts of their experiences with all sources of breastfeeding support received in the 6 months following the delivery of a healthy full-term infant in Calgary. We conducted qualitative thematic analysis, using constant comparison techniques. RESULTS: The sample included 86 mothers. Our analyses uncovered 4 emergent themes that contributed to the perceived quality of breastfeeding support: knowledge, effectiveness, sensitivity/emotional support and accessible when sought. INTERPRETATION: Our study provides a greater understanding of how mothers perceive the quality of the breastfeeding support that they receive, as well as what qualities of breastfeeding support are seen as beneficial or negative. The qualities contributing to the perception of breastfeeding support are important to inform and optimize perinatal care, and potentially reduce the risk of negative mental health outcomes for mothers.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".