Social Support and Exclusive Breast feeding among Canadian Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommendation for exclusive breast feeding for 6 months has been endorsed by Health Canada, the Canadian Pediatric Society, Dietitians of Canada, and the Breastfeeding Committee for Canada as of 2012. This study examines whether social support is associated with exclusive breast feeding up to 6 months among Canadian mothers. METHODS: We utilised data from the Canadian Community Health Survey and limited our sample to mothers who gave birth in the 5 years prior to the 2009-2010 survey (n = 2133). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between exclusive breast feeding and four dimensions of social support: (i) tangible, (ii) affectionate, (iii) positive social interaction, and (iv) emotional and informational, based on the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Scale. Absolute and relative differences in the probability of breast feeding exclusively and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: In adjusted models, differences in the probability of exclusive breast feeding for 6 months were not different among women with high vs. low social support. The association between social support and breastfeeding exclusively was modified by education level, with significantly higher probability of breast feeding exclusively among women with lower education and high vs. low levels of tangible and affectionate support. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with education below a high school level, high tangible and affectionate support significantly increased probability of exclusive breast feeding for 6 months in this study. Efforts to encourage exclusive breast feeding need to address social support for mothers, especially those with lower education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".