Hospital breastfeeding support and exclusive breastfeeding by maternal prepregnancy body mass index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overweight and obese mothers in the United States have disproportionately lower rates of exclusive breastfeeding than mothers of normal weight. The Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding (Ten Steps), a series of evidence-based practices designed to support breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity, demonstrate effectiveness at the population level. It is unknown, however, whether they are consistently provided to women across all maternal body mass index (BMI) categories. We sought to determine whether pre-pregnancy BMI is associated with the implementation and effectiveness of the Ten Steps. We used data from Listening to Mothers III, a cross-sectional survey administered to a sample of mothers who delivered in U.S. hospitals between July 2011 and June 2012. Measures of the Ten Steps were based on maternal self-report on Listening to Mothers III. Our analytic sample was limited to mothers of term infants intending to breastfeed (N = 1,506, weighted). We conducted chi-square testing and constructed weighted multivariable logistic regression models to account for potential confounders. Results suggest that two practices (i.e., holding their babies skin-to-skin for the first time and being encouraged to breastfeed on demand) were more strongly associated with exclusive breastfeeding among mothers with obesity than other mothers. Additionally, mothers with obesity reported holding babies skin-to-skin significantly less often than other mothers. Thus, interventions aimed at helping mothers with obesity to hold their babies skin-to-skin in the first hour and teaching them to breastfeed on demand have the potential to decrease the breastfeeding disparities in this population.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".