Exploring Breastfeeding Knowledge and Attitudes among Noncaregivers: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months with continued breastfeeding up to 2 years and beyond are well-established infant feeding recommendations based on evidence that breastfeeding has unparalleled maternal and infant health benefits as well as environmental and economic benefits. As with many high-income countries, breastfeeding rates remain suboptimal with only a quarter of Canadian and European infants receiving breast milk exclusively for the first 6 months. Breastfeeding promotion efforts have largely targeted caregivers in the prenatal and postnatal period; however, breastfeeding outcomes have been shown to be associated with broader sociocultural factors. Noncaregivers play an influential role in infant feeding at both an individual level (e.g., cues and input from health care practitioners and caregivers' social networks; as future parents) as well as a broader population level (sociocultural norms and policy decisions). This paper outlines recent research on breastfeeding knowledge and attitudes of noncaregivers by population subgroup. Positive correlations have been identified between breastfeeding attitudes, infant feeding knowledge, breastfeeding exposure, and breastfeeding intention among different subgroups; however, key knowledge gaps, lack of exposure to breastfeeding, and negative public perceptions of breastfeeding persist. Dietitians can advocate for breastfeeding promotion strategies that consider the role of noncaregivers to address sociocultural norms around 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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".