A comparison of exclusive breastfeeding in Belgian maternity facilities with and without Baby‐friendly Hospital status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out in Wallonia (the southern region of Belgium) in which a 20-question breastfeeding (BF) module was included in an immunization survey. The purpose of this paper is to compare exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) prevalences and BF practices for mothers giving birth in Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) and non-BFHI maternity facilities. A total of 557 mothers responded to BF questions when their child was 18-24 months old; 26.7% of them delivered in a BFHI maternity facility. At discharge, a larger proportion of children were exclusively breastfed if they were born in a BFHI maternity facility (76.5% vs. 65.8%, p = .02). The median duration of EBF (15.0 vs. 12.9 weeks, p = .3), and the proportion of children exclusively breastfed at 5 months (16.8% vs 15.8%, p = 1.0) were similar in both groups. Few mothers knew that EBF was recommended for the first 6 months of life (28.6% in BFHI vs 23.1% in non-BFHI, p = .2). For most groups of the population examined, the rates of BF tended to be higher in BFHI facilities, but many differences were not significant. More specifically, BFHI seemed to boost BF practices among mothers more likely to breastfeed, but the Initiative did not seem to trigger enhanced BF practices in mothers traditionally less likely to breastfeed (except for indifferent/negative partner's attitude and mothers of Belgian origin). Influencing the BF practices of mothers less likely to breastfeed requires a special attention with complementary actions in maternity facilities as well as in community services.
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".