A randomized controlled trial to test the effect of an antenatal educational intervention on breastfeeding duration among primiparous women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the health benefits of breastfeeding have been well established, the majority of Canadian women wean prior to six months after birth. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to test the effect of an antenatal educational intervention on breastfeeding duration. The study examined how long women assigned to the intervention group (n=l 11) breastfed their infants compared to women who received usual care (n=98). Secondary outcomes of the study (i.e. maternal competence, breastfeeding confidence, maternal satisfaction, fatigue and onset of depressive symptoms) were analyzed in relation to breastfeeding duration. Primiparous women, who attended a series of antenatal classes and had decided to breastfeed their infants, were recruited. The intervention, which included completion of a pre-workshop guide and attendance at an interactive group workshop, emphasized strategies expectant mothers and their partners could use to prevent or minimize the problems most often reported as the reasons women quit breastfeeding. Strategies also were provided that have been regarded by mothers and health experts as being helpful to prolong lactation. The analysis was conducted on an intention-totreat basis. Results indicated there was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the proportion of women still mainly breastfeeding at 24 weeks after birth. Multivariate analyses yielded three significant predictive variables of breastfeeding duration including higher breastfeeding confidence (p=.001), non-smoking status (p=.017), and the mother receiving a visit by a community health nurse within two weeks after the infant's birth (p=.023). Implications for practice and research are discussed.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".