The Influence of Spinal Cord Injury on Breastfeeding Ability and Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lactation dysfunction following spinal cord injury has been noted in the literature. However, researchers have often grouped together all women of physical disability or do not account for injury level. The extent of lactation dysfunction and influence of spinal cord injury on breastfeeding ability and behavior is not well understood. Research aim: This study aimed to identify major barriers to lactation and breastfeeding related to spinal cord injury, specifically comparing high- and low-level injuries. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional survey design was used. Two online questionnaires were developed and completed by women ( N = 52) who chose to breastfeed with spinal cord injury, primarily in Canada and Sweden. RESULTS: The first questionnaire was completed by 52 women with spinal cord injury; 38 of the original 52 participants completed the second questionnaire. Of the 52 women, 28 (53.8%) had high-level spinal cord injury (at or above T6) and 24 (46.1%) had low-level injury (below T6). On the second questionnaire, 14 (77.8%) women with high-level injury reported insufficient milk production or ejection. Only 35% of women ( n = 7) with low-level injury reported the same. Autonomic dysreflexia was experienced by 38.9% of women ( n = 7) with high-level injury. Exclusive breastfeeding duration was significantly shorter ( p < .05) in the high-level injury group (3.3 months) compared with women with low-level injury (6.5 months). CONCLUSION: These results further support the notion that spinal cord injury (particularly at or above T6) disrupts lactation and is associated with shorter breastfeeding duration. Autonomic dysreflexia should be addressed in prospective mothers with high-level spinal cord injury.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".