Changes in breastfeeding initiation at hospital discharge between first and second births in Nova Scotia: a population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding has well-recognized health benefits for infants and mothers. However, little research has been conducted to investigate changes in breastfeeding from one pregnancy to another. This study was conducted to describe rates of breastfeeding initiation at hospital discharge for women's first and second births and to identify factors associated with changes in initiation at the second birth. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal, population-based cohort study involving women residing in Nova Scotia who delivered a first and second live-born singleton between 2007 and 2013. Separate analyses were conducted among women who breastfed their first infant and among women who did not breastfeed their first infant. RESULTS: Of the 9643 (82.6%) mothers who initiated breastfeeding in the first birth, 973 (10.3%) did not initiate breastfeeding in the second birth. Of first-birth noninitiators, 526 (26.3%) initiated breastfeeding in the second birth. With the exception of smoking and cesarean births, factors that were associated with breastfeeding initiation in the second birth depended on breastfeeding initiation status in the first birth. These factors were associated with increased odds of not breastfeeding in the second birth among the subset of mothers who breastfed in the first birth, and decreased odds of breastfeeding in the second birth among the subset of mothers who did not breastfeed in the first birth. INTERPRETATION: Most women continue the same method of infant feeding after their first and second births. Identifying factors associated with change in breastfeeding status between the first and second births may help to inform interventions for optimal breastfeeding initiation in the second birth.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".