Prevalence and predictors of exclusive breastfeeding among immigrant and Canadian‐born Chinese women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breastfeeding is the optimal method for infant feeding, yet migrant women may be at risk for suboptimal exclusivity rates. In a cohort of immigrant and Canadian-born Chinese women, our objectives were to (a) describe patterns and prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding at 1, 3, and 6 months postpartum; (b) identify risk and protective factors associated with exclusivity; and (c) examine potentially differential importance of these factors across this 6-month period. This was a prospective study of 565 immigrants and Canadian-born Chinese women (Toronto, Canada). Exclusive breastfeeding was measured at 1, 3, and 6 months postpartum. Predictors comprised fixed (demographics, history of depression, immigrant status, prenatal breastfeeding classes, in-hospital formula supplementation, baseline social support, and baseline acculturative stress) and time-dependent (depression, anxiety, fatigue, and breastfeeding problems) variables. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and generalized linear mixed models, respectively, were undertaken to address the objectives. Patterns of breastfeeding practices included exclusive breastfeeding in all time points (26.8%) or none (32.9%) and moving from exclusive to nonexclusive (20.3%) or nonexclusive to exclusive breastfeeding (15.2%). Women less likely to breastfeed exclusively at 1, 3, or 6 months were those whose infants received in-hospital formula supplementation. Exclusivity attrition was higher between 3 and 6 months than 1-3 months. Immigrant status and in-hospital formula supplementation had a significant impact on exclusivity earlier in the postpartum period while breastfeeding problems were associated with decreased exclusivity across time. Proactive preventive efforts are need to maintain breastfeeding exclusivity especially between 3 and 6 months if women are to meet international breastfeeding recommendations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".