Providing Breastfeeding Support: Experiences from Child-Health Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breastfeeding problems are common during the early period but can often be prevented or overcome with adequate support. Child-health nurses meet almost all children during their first weeks of life and play an important role in promoting breastfeeding and in strengthening parents’ confidence and their belief in their own ability. It is, therefore, important to gain more knowledge about child-health nurses’ experiences. Objective: To describe child-health nurses’ experiences of providing breastfeeding support. Methods: This qualitative study is descriptive with an inductive approach. A purposive sample of eight child-health nurses recruited from district health care centers participated. Data were collected through focus group interviews and analyzed with content analysis. Results: Child-health nurses consider it to be important to provide early breastfeeding support and that early hospital discharge following birth can complicate breastfeeding. Furthermore, the introduction of infant formula and tiny tastes given to the baby can be a barrier to breastfeeding. Parents’ confidence had an effect on breastfeeding, and breastfeeding is promoted by confident parents. Trends and cultural differences have an influence on parents’ attitudes toward breastfeeding. Child-health nurses stated the importance of having a consensus breastfeeding policy. Conclusion and Recommendation: A number of factors affect breastfeeding, and breastfeeding support from child-health nurses is important in the early stages after birth. To conclude, the support must be individually tailored with a focus on the parents’ needs. There is a need for greater cooperation between the maternal care and child-health care staff in order to provide adequate and continuous breastfeeding support throughout the care chain.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".