Musculoskeletal Impairment: Causes of Pain with Breastfeeding Insight into 11 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: To determine the possible relationship between pain experienced by mothers with breastfeeding and musculoskeletal impairment commonly seen in physiotherapy practice. Evidence-based principles of the evaluation and treatment of musculoskeletal impairment used in physiotherapy practice were applied and adapted to manage pain experienced by mothers with breastfeeding. Subjects and Methods: This report describes 11 mothers referred to a breastfeeding clinic for pain with breastfeeding. Mothers were initially assessed by a physician and a nurse clinician, both International Board-Certified Lactation Consultants, to rule out causes of breast or nipple pain. When the cause remained unexplained, it was deemed musculoskeletal, and mothers were referred to a physiotherapist for assessment and treatment with manual orthopedic therapy and mobilization of the myofascial system. Results: The physiotherapist's objective musculoskeletal assessment and mothers' impression showed an improvement in the overall clinical picture after the first appointment in most mothers. Pain was resolved or alleviated by 80% in five mothers after 1–3 weekly treatments. The most useful therapeutic approach was to make afflicted mothers aware of their posture to maintain spinal alignment and avoid shear posture (lateral displacement of the trunk). Shear posture is a consequence of sitting leaning to one side. This posture is exacerbated by thoracic rotation and flexion, for example, when turning the trunk and bending over the baby while giving the breast. Conclusion: Treating musculoskeletal impairment referred pain to the breast or nipple with physiotherapy practices used in a nonbreastfeeding clientele can help alleviate or resolve pain with breastfeeding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".