Community‐based father education intervention on breastfeeding practice—Results of a quasi‐experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the benefits of breastfeeding are well-documented, little is known about how best to encourage fathers to support breastfeeding. A quasi-experimental study of a community-based intervention was designed to examine whether health education to promote fathers' involvement in supporting women is associated with early initiation and exclusive breastfeeding practices. At baseline, 802 couples of fathers with pregnant wives from 12 to 27 weeks of gestational age were recruited to either the intervention group (n = 390) or a control group (n = 412) consisting of couples seeking care through routine maternal and child health services. Fathers in the intervention area received breastfeeding education and counselling services in health facilities and at home visits during the antenatal, delivery, and post-partum periods. Peer education and social exchange concerning breastfeeding were organized in fathers' clubs. After 1 year of the intervention, mothers in the intervention group were more likely to initiate early breastfeeding 49.2 and 35.8% in the intervention and control group respectively, P < 0.001. At 1, 4, and 6 months after birth, 34.8, 18.7, and 1.9% of the mothers in the intervention group were exclusively breastfeeding their children because of birth, respectively, compared with 5.7, 4.0, and 0.0% of those in the control group (P < 0.001). Those practices were associated with the intervention in bivariate and multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses. Intervention targeting fathers at antenatal and postnatal periods may positively influence the breastfeeding practices of mothers, and it should be an important component of breastfeeding programs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".