High confidence, yet poor knowledge of infant feeding recommendations among adults in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, adherence to the national 'Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants' recommendations of infant and young child feeding (IYCF; 0-24 months) is suboptimal. While maternal knowledge of IYCF is commonly assessed, that of the general public has rarely been explored. Our objective was to assess the knowledge of, and confidence in answers to, Canadian IYCF recommendations among a diverse sample of adults in Nova Scotia, Canada. Between March and May 2018, a self-administered questionnaire examining IYCF knowledge, self-rated confidence, and sociodemographic information was conducted among Nova Scotians (≥19 years) in public locations. We surveyed 229 adults; 60% (n=134) were women. Mean (95% CI) age was 44 (41,46) years, 73% self-identified as white, 77% were born in Canada, and 69% were parents. Knowledge deficits were: age to terminate breastfeeding (18.3 (16.7,19.9) months; recommendation: ≥24 months), age to introduce solids (9.2 (8.2,10.2) months; recommendation: 6 months), vitamin D supplementation (10% correct), and optimal complementary foods (only 37% indicated iron-rich foods). Correct IYCF knowledge was lower among men, non-parents, young adults (19-29 years) and low-income adults (<$50,000/year). Mean self-rated confidence (out of 10) was high (7.2 (6.9,7.5)), and not different (p>0.05) between correct and incorrect responses for: best food for a newborn, age to terminate any breastfeeding, and age to start family meal foods. We found low knowledge of IYCF guidelines, yet high confidence in responses regardless of accuracy, among adults in Nova Scotia. General public knowledge deficits may contribute to an unsupportive culture around IYCF practices and low adherence to current recommendations.
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".