International Board Certified Lactation Consultants’ Practices Regarding Supplemental Feeding Methods for Breastfed Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: According to the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, when supplementary feeding occurs, mothers should be counseled on the use and risks of feeding bottles and teats. To help support this initiative it is important to understand the supplementation practices of Internationally Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLC)®. Research aims: To determine (1) if the location of an IBCLC’s practice has any impact on supplemental feeding methods; (2) the preferred methods of and the main reasons for supplementation; (3) the level of an IBCLC’s confidence with supplemental feeding methods; (4) who is making supplemental feeding decisions; and (5) if there are geographical differences among supplementation choices and reasons for supplementation. Methods: An exploratory, descriptive, cross sectional survey of IBCLCs was conducted to generate data about their use of supplemental feeding methods. The survey was sent via email invitation through the International Board of Lactation Consultant’s Board of Examiners, with a response rate of 11.5% ( N = 2,308). Results: There was no standard method of supplementation among participants. Participants indicated that they were confident advising mothers on alternative feeding methods. Only 17.6% ( n = 406) of participants reported that the IBCLC was the caregiver who recommended the method of supplementation used. The majority of participants believed the Supplemental Feeding Tube Device SFTD) best preserves the breastfeeding relationship, and this was their preferred method of supplementation. However, the bottle was ranked as the number one method used in the United States, Australia, and Canada. The use of alternative feeding methods may be overwhelming to the mother. Conclusion: Supplementation by alternative feeding methods might help preserve the breastfeeding relationship and help reach the World Health Organization’s goal of increasing exclusive breastfeeding rates.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".