DOES BREASTFEEDING DURATION INFLUENCE FAMILY FOOD INSECURITY?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Across all demographics, families without consistent access to adequate food place children at health risk. Consequences may persist beyond early life into adulthood. Public policy positions breastfeeding, the ideal nutrition for infants, as an important solution to reducing family food insecurity (FFI). However, few studies have investigated the association between breastfeeding duration and FFI. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the association between total breastfeeding duration and FFI in Canadian urban children. DESIGN/METHODS A cross-sectional study was conducted of children aged 0–2 years, from a practice-based child research network. Total breastfeeding duration was collected from parent-reported questionnaires. FFI was measured using 2-item food insecurity and validated 1-item NutriSTEP screens. Multivariable regression analysis was performed adjusting for pre-specified covariates. RESULTS Among 3838 children, the mean total breastfeeding duration was 10.6 months (SD=6.7). Families with food insecurity (14.7%) had increased odds of younger mothers, more males and older and more children. In adjusted model, breastfeeding duration was not associated with FFI (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.01). Low-income families were 9 times more likely to be family food insecure than high-income families (p=0.00). CONCLUSION Contrary to public policy, our study found no association between breastfeeding and family food insecurity (FFI). However, other factors may predominate, in particular family income and structure. Given the detrimental impact of FFI, further research is needed to understand the role of infant feeding practices within the larger political, policy and cultural framework.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".