A Comparison of Maternal Experience With Breastfeeding at 6 Weeks Postpartum [33]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding until 6 months of age; however, many mothers find it difficult to comply with these guidelines. The purpose of this study was to examine the barriers to breastfeeding among women who are exclusively breastfeeding compared with those who are complementary breastfeeding or exclusively formula-feeding. METHODS: Two hundred twenty patients attending an outpatient obstetrics clinic at 6 weeks postpartum were asked to rate their experience with 25 barriers to breastfeeding. Categorical variables were stratified and then analyzed using frequencies and χ2 tests (P=.05). Associations between stratified groups and experience of barriers to breastfeeding were reported using odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals and analysis of maximum likelihood estimates, where P=.05. RESULTS: Of the 194 evaluable surveys, 57% of women were exclusively breastfeeding, 32% complementary breastfeeding, and 11% exclusively formula-feeding at 6 weeks postpartum. Most of those who reported formula-feeding, started within the first 2 weeks postpartum (74%). There were no significant differences between the exclusively breastfeeding and formula-feeding groups in their experience with most (17/25) of the barriers. Compared with women who were exclusively breastfeeding, those who were formula-feeding had significantly more experience with specific barriers, including insufficient milk production, difficulty with milk flow, trouble with latch or suck, infant lack of satisfaction with breast milk, infant self-weaning, and maternal and health professional concerns regarding infant weight gain. CONCLUSION: Breastfeeding interventions should focus on both early postpartum lactation support and counseling of neonatal nutritional expectations to provide the information and skills needed for mothers to overcome barriers to breastfeeding.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".