MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763493005 · doi:10.1093/pch/19.6.e35-168

172: The Impact of a Breastfeeding Support Intervention on Breastfeeding Duration in Jaundiced Infants Admitted to a Tertiary Care Centre Hospital: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2014· article· en· W2763493005 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine Pound, Katherine Moreau, Kristina Rohde, Ken Farion, Nick Barrowman, Mary Aglipay, AC Plint

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Health and Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineRandomized controlled trialPediatricsIntervention (counseling)JaundiceNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mothers of infants admitted to hospital with jaundice are at risk of stopping breastfeeding. We examined the impact of a breastfeeding support intervention on breastfeeding duration in infants admitted to hospital with jaundice. This was a randomized controlled trial with a qualitative component. We aimed to recruit 124 participants (62 per group). Mothers of breastfeeding infants <1 month of age admitted to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) with a diagnosis of jaundice between October 2010 to 2013 were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. Mothers in the intervention group met with an International Board-certified Lactation Consultant in hospital, and one to three times after discharge. Both groups received hospital standard of care for jaundice treatment. The main outcome measure was exclusive breastfeeding at three months of age. Secondary outcomes included partial and exclusive breastfeeding at various time points, number of re-hospitalizations, number of physician encounters, and number of mothers seeking breastfeeding help, all in the first six months of life. Semi-structured interviews elicited feedback on participant experiences. A total of 99 participants were recruited (49 in the control and 50 in the intervention group). 86 were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. There was no difference in exclusive breastfeeding at three months between groups (RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.51 to 1.14]; P=0.20) or in any of the secondary outcomes. Thirty-one participants (13 in the control group, 18 in the intervention) were included in the qualitative analysis. Intervention group participants reported an increase in comfort and confidence levels with breastfeeding, an enhanced emotional wellbeing, and a feeling of empowerment to pursue breastfeeding. Control group participants reported limited breastfeeding support in hospital, which was largely restricted to verbal information. Recommendations from both groups included the presence of an on-site lactation consultant at CHEO. Although the quantitative analysis failed to demonstrate significant differences between groups, feedback on the study intervention obtained in the qualitative analysis was positive. Qualitative analysis suggests an increase in mothers' confidence, which has been linked to breastfeeding duration. Further larger studies are needed to elucidate the impact of an inhospital lactation support program on successful breastfeeding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicNeonatal Health and BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207