“We Just Kind of Had to Figure It Out”: A Qualitative Exploration of the Information Needs of Mothers Who Express Human Milk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human milk expression, primarily by pump, is practiced by the majority of breastfeeding mothers in affluent countries. Existing literature is focused on determining prevalence and duration rates and the factors behind this trend. There is less research exploring mothers' perspectives and experiences related to expression. RESEARCH AIM: To gather the experiential wisdom of mothers with a focus on their information needs and sources related to human milk expression. METHODS: Audiotaped interviews were conducted with 35 mothers of infants, aged birth to 24 months, who had expressed milk at least once in western Canada. This study was guided by interpretive description, an applied qualitative research approach. RESULTS: Registered nurses and international board-certified lactation consultants were the most common sources of information, with Internet, friends/family, and other mothers also important. Inconsistent expression advice was confusing for participants, and many reported health care providers did not address all their expression learning needs. Desired topic areas included practical advice on how to express, determining expression frequency/timing/duration, milk storage guidelines, the influence of expression on milk supply, product information, and general support/encouragement. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of expression learning needs should be part of routine lactation support at each encounter. Nonjudgmental, factual guidance will assist mothers in making evidence-informed decisions related to expression practices that are consistent with their unique breastfeeding goals. This should be supplemented by reputable online resources that provide timely and accurate information as well as efforts to connect mothers with peer support groups.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".