Determinants of Nonmedically Indicated In-Hospital Supplementation of Infants Whose Birthing Parents Intended to Exclusively Breastfeed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite high rates of intention to exclusively breastfeed, rates of exclusive breastfeeding in Canada are low. Supplementation may begin in hospital and is associated with reduced breastfeeding duration. Research aim: The aim of this investigation was to explore determinants of in-hospital nonmedically indicated supplementation of infants whose birthing parents intended to exclusively breastfeed. METHODS: This study is a cross-sectional one-group nonexperimental design, focused on participants who intended to exclusively breastfeed for 6 months ( n = 496). Data were collected between October 2011 and October 2015 in Newfoundland and Labrador. Variables measured included age; rural/urban location; education; income; race; marital status; parity; smoking status; having been breastfed as an infant; previous breastfeeding experience; Iowa Infant Feeding Attitude Scale score; delivery mode; infant birth weight; birth satisfaction; skin-to-skin contact; length of participant's hospital stay; breastfeeding advice from a lactation consultant, registered nurse, or physician; and first impression of breastfeeding. We evaluated determinants of in-hospital nonmedically indicated supplementation using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 16.9% ( n = 84) of infants received nonmedically indicated supplementation in hospital. Multivariate modeling revealed four determinants: low total prenatal Iowa Infant Feeding Attitude Scale score (odds ratio [OR] = 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.18, 3.27]), no previous breastfeeding experience (OR = 2.03, 95% CI [1.15, 3.61]), negative first impression of breastfeeding (OR = 2.67, 95% CI [1.61, 4.43]), and receiving breastfeeding advice from a hospital physician (OR = 2.86, 95% CI [1.59, 5.15]). CONCLUSION: Elements of the hospital experience, self-efficacy, and attitudes toward infant feeding are determinants of nonmedically indicated supplementation of infants whose birthing parents intended to exclusively breastfeed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".