Relation between household food insecurity and breastfeeding in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Qualitative studies have suggested that food insecurity adversely affects infant feeding practices. We aimed to determine how household food insecurity relates to breastfeeding initiation, duration of exclusive breastfeeding and vitamin D supplementation of breastfed infants in Canada. METHODS: We studied 10 450 women who had completed the Maternal Experiences - Breastfeeding Module and the Household Food Security Survey Module of the Canadian Community Health Survey (2005-2014) and who had given birth in the year of or year before their interview. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression to examine the relation between food insecurity and infant feeding practices, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, maternal mood disorders and diabetes mellitus. RESULTS: Overall, 17% of the women reported household food insecurity, of whom 8.6% had moderate food insecurity and 2.9% had severe food insecurity (weighted percentages). After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, women with food insecurity were no less likely than others to initiate breastfeeding or provide vitamin D supplementation to their infants. Half of the women with food insecurity ceased exclusive breastfeeding by 2 months, whereas most of those with food security persisted with breastfeeding for 4 months or more. Relative to women with food security, those with marginal, moderate and severe food insecurity had significantly lower odds of exclusive breastfeeding to 4 months, but only women with moderate food insecurity had lower odds of exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months, independent of sociodemographic characteristics (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.39-0.92). Adjustment for maternal mood disorder or diabetes slightly attenuated these relationships. INTERPRETATION: Mothers caring for infants in food-insecure households attempted to follow infant feeding recommendations, but were less able than women with food security to sustain exclusive breastfeeding. Our findings highlight the need for more effective interventions to support food-insecure families with newborns.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".