Moving toward a better understanding of the experience and measurement of breastfeeding-related pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Despite how commonly breastfeeding-related pain is experienced in the postpartum period, and its frequent implication in breastfeeding cessation, this unique type of pain is not well evaluated nor assessed. The purpose of this study was to gain a comprehensive description and understanding of breastfeeding-related pain among postpartum breastfeeding women.Methods: This study employed a mixed methods approach using a descriptive-interpretive qualitative approach, in addition to administering the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, second version, to comprehensively gain both quantitative and qualitative descriptors of breastfeeding-related pain. Fourteen partnered and educated women living in Southern Ontario with experience of breastfeeding-related pain took part in this study.Results: The results from this study suggest that breastfeeding-related pain is often experienced as severe and distressing, and comprises various elements of pain including continuous, intermittent, neuropathic, and affective components.Conclusion: Breastfeeding-related pain is multidimensional and can be severe and distressing for women. Current measurement tools may not adequately reflect the multidimensional components of this unique type of pain, which may limit the effectiveness of health care providers to help with its identification and management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".