MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776796234 · doi:10.2196/mhealth.8515

Factors Influencing Engagement and Behavioral Determinants of Infant Feeding in an mHealth Program: Qualitative Evaluation of the Growing Healthy Program

2017· article· en· W2776796234 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eloise Litterbach, Catherine G. Russell, Sarah Taki, Elizabeth Denney‐Wilson, Karen Campbell, Rachel Laws

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Primary Health Care Research Institute, Australian National UniversityMedical Research CouncilAustralian Government
KeywordsmHealthBreastfeedingPsychological interventionMobile phoneChildhood obesityBreast feedingPsychologyInfant feedingQualitative researchInfant formulaDevelopmental psychologyMedicineObesityNursingPediatricsOverweightComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Infant feeding practices, including breastfeeding and optimal formula feeding practices, can play a role in the prevention of childhood obesity. The ubiquity of smartphone ownership among women of childbearing age provides important opportunities for the delivery of low-cost, broad reach parenting interventions delivered by mobile phone (mHealth or mobile health interventions). Little is known about how parents engage with mHealth programs targeting infant feeding and how such programs might influence infant feeding practices. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to explore participant views on (1) factors influencing engagement with the Growing healthy program, an mHealth program targeting healthy infant feeding practices from birth to 9 months of age, and (2) the ways in which the program influenced behavioral determinants of capability, opportunity, and motivation for breastfeeding and optimal formula feeding behaviors. METHODS: Semistructured, telephone interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample (n=24) of mothers participating in the Growing healthy program. Interviews explored participants' views about engagement with the program and its features, and the ways the program influenced determinants of infant feeding behaviors related to breastfeeding and optimal formula feeding. The interview schedule was informed by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) model. RESULTS: Participants reported that engagement fluctuated depending on need and the degree to which the program was perceived to fit with existing parenting beliefs and values. Participants identified that the credibility of the program source, the user friendly interface, and tailoring of content and push notifications to baby's age and key transition points promoted engagement, whereas technical glitches were reported to reduce engagement. Participants discussed that the program increased confidence in feeding decisions. For breastfeeding mothers, this was achieved by helping them to overcome doubts about breast milk supply, whereas mothers using formula reported feeling more confident to feed to hunger and satiety cues rather than encouraging infants to finish the bottle. Participants discussed that the program provided around-the-clock, readily accessible, nonjudgmental information and support on infant feeding and helped to reinforce information received by health professionals or encouraged them to seek additional help if needed. Participants reflected that their plans for feeding were typically made before joining the program, limiting the potential for the program to influence this aspect of motivation. Rather, the program provided emotional reassurance to continue with current feeding plans. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that engagement with the program was influenced by an interplay between the program features and needs of the user. Participants reported that the program enhanced confidence in feeding decisions by providing a 24/7 accessible, expert, nonjudgmental support for infant feeding that complemented health professional advice. It is likely that interventions need to commence during pregnancy to maximize the impact on breastfeeding intentions and plans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.340
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations55
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207