Empowering women to breastfeed: Does the Baby Friendly Initiative make a difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFI) is currently presented worldwide as the gold standard model of care for promoting and supporting breastfeeding. However, there is a lack of understanding about the ways in which health services, including the BFI, address the cultural change from a disembodied practice (formula feeding) to an embodied one (breastfeeding) in contexts where formula feeding is the norm. We used a qualitative case study methodology to compare the embodied experience of breastfeeding and the maternal experience of breastfeeding promotion and support services between mothers receiving care from institutions with low and high levels of BFI implementation in Québec, Canada. A total of 11 focus groups were conducted with mothers from six institutions-three with high and three with low levels of BFI implementation. We found the flexible approach to breastfeeding duration, characteristic of BFI services in our study, helped to avoid maternal guilt and shame; the shift to focusing on potential barriers and strategies for overcoming them empowered women to negotiate changes in infant feeding with others and self by addressing the embodied experience of a practice that may not feel natural at the beginning. Findings have implications for the concept of habitus and the construction of the breastfeeding body; we suggest that habitus can change if agents are provided with discursive tools to negotiate this embodied change. Implications for BFI services include the need to implement the 10 steps in a flexible, family-centred way that focuses on empowering women rather than simply reaching outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".