Breastfeeding and Opiate Substitution Therapy: Starting to Understand Infant Feeding Choices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite research demonstrating the safety and benefit of breastfeeding in opioid substitution therapy, few women in treatment breastfeed. Understanding the factors contributing to the choices women on opioid substitution therapy make about infant feeding is important. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to better understand and support infant feeding choices and breastfeeding experiences in women on opioid substitution therapy. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on five databases: (1) Ovid MEDLINE(R) without revisions, (2) Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, (3) EMBASE, (4) CINAHL, and (5) FRANCIS. From 1081 articles, 46 articles were reviewed. RESULTS: The literature supports breastfeeding as an appropriate and safe option for women on opioid substitution treatment. Breastfeeding and rooming-in reduce neonatal abstinence. Women face barriers to breastfeeding due to societal stigma and the lack of patient and health-care provider education. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts are needed to increase the knowledge that women and health-care professionals have about the safety and benefits of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".