The effect of postpartum afterpain on breastfeeding self-efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study was carried out to identify the effect of postpartum afterpain on breastfeeding self-efficacy.Materials and Methods: This was a descriptive study. The sample consisted of 376 postnatal women who met the criteria for participation in the study. The participants were administered the Personal Information Form, The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, The Short-Form Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale. Results: The mean total score received from the breastfeeding self-efficacy by the postpartum women was found to be 36.88±8.54 (min:14, max:70). The mean scores of the sensory and affective pain, total pain intensity, and visual analoque scale were found to be 33.53±4.18 (min:0, max:45), 2.60±1.39 (min:0, max:5), 6.23±1.91 (min:0, max:10), respectively. In this study, the breastfeeding self-efficacy was found to be higher in the women who were 35 years and over, found their social support adequate, planned their current pregnancy, received prenatal care, expressed their willingness to breastfeed, had no breastfeeding problem. The self-efficacy of breastfeeding is low for women who experienced postpartum abdominal pain, who described the frequency of pain as ‘continuous, continuous and constant’, and who stated that they needed analgesia. A statistically significant negative correlation was determined between the postpartum women’s breastfeeding self-efficacy scores and their postpartum afterpain scores. The postpartum women with afterpain were found to have low levels of breastfeeding self-efficacy.Conclusion: Postpartum pain negatively affects breastfeeding self-efficacy. Controlling pain contributes to the effective implementation of the breastfeeding process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".