Inadequate prenatal care use and breastfeeding practices in Canada: a national survey of women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that prenatal care (PNC) has an effect on women's breastfeeding practices. This study aims to examine the influence of adequacy of PNC initiation and services use on breastfeeding practices in Canada. METHODS: Data for this secondary analysis was drawn from the Maternity Experiences Survey (MES), a cross sectional, nationally representative study that investigated the peri-and post-natal experiences of mothers, aged 15 and above, with singleton live births between 2005 and 2006 in the Canadian provinces and territories. Adequacy of PNC initiation and services use were measured by the Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index. The main outcomes were mother's intent to breastfeed, initiate breastfeeding, exclusively breastfeed, and terminate breastfeeding at 6 months. Multivariate logistic regression analysis assessed the adequacy of PNC initiation and service use on breastfeeding practices, while adjusting for socioeconomic, demographic, maternal, pregnancy and delivery related variables. Bootstrapping was performed to account for the complex sampling design. RESULTS: Around 75.0% of women intended to only breastfeed their child, with 90.0% initiating breastfeeding, while 6 month termination and exclusive breastfeeding rates were at 52.0% and 14.3%, respectively. Regression analysis showed no association between adequate PNC initiation or services use, and any breastfeeding practice. Mothers with either a family doctor or a midwife as PNC provider were significantly more likely to have better breastfeeding practices compared to an obstetrician. CONCLUSIONS: In Canada, provider type impacts a mother's breastfeeding decision and behavior rather than quantity and timing of PNC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".