The Relationship Between Infant Feeding Outcomes and Maternal Emotional Well-being Among Mothers of Late Preterm and Term Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Late preterm birth is associated with lower rates of breastfeeding and earlier breastfeeding cessation than term birth. PURPOSE: The objectives of this secondary analysis were to compare the incidence of exclusive breastfeeding after late preterm and term childbirth and to examine the association between infant feeding outcomes and maternal emotional well-being. METHODS: Participants were 105 mother-infant dyads (54 late preterm and 51 term) at a southeastern US medical center. Face-to-face data collection and telephone follow-up occurred during 2009-2012. RESULTS: Late preterm mothers were less likely to exclusively provide their milk than were term mothers during hospitalization. Feeding at 1 month did not differ between late preterm and term infants. Among late preterm mothers, (1) formula supplementation during hospitalization was associated with greater severity of anxiety than among those exclusively providing formula and (2) exclusive provision of human milk at 1 month was associated with less severe depressive symptoms than among those supplementing or exclusively formula feeding. Among term mothers, feeding outcome was not related to emotional well-being measures at either time point. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Mothers of late preterm infants may particularly benefit from anticipatory guidance and early mental health screening, with integrated, multidisciplinary lactation teams to support these interrelated healthcare needs. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Prospective research is critical to document women's intentions for infant feeding and how experiences with childbirth and the early postpartum period impact achievement of their breastfeeding goals.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".