Maternal religion and breastfeeding intention and practice in the US Project Viva cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Religion has rarely been studied as a determinant of infant feeding practices. We examined whether religious affiliation is associated with formula feeding vs breastfeeding intention and practice in women from the United States Project Viva cohort. METHODS: Between 1999 and 2002, 2128 pregnant women were recruited in the area of Boston, Massachusetts. They reported by questionnaire their religious affiliation, and their intended and practiced infant feeding mode (exclusive formula feeding vs partial vs exclusive breastfeeding) at different time points. We examined associations of religious affiliation with infant feeding intention and practice by modified Poisson regression and multinomial logistic regression adjusted for known sociodemographic confounders. RESULTS: Of 1637 women with complete data, 52% reported being Catholic, 29% Protestant, 11% unaffiliated, 4% Jewish, and 4% other religion. Overall, 8.5% and 15.9% women intended and initiated exclusive formula feeding, respectively. Compared with unaffiliated women, Catholics were more at risk to intend to exclusively formula-feed their infant at birth (risk ratio [95% CI]: 6.4 [1.6-26.0]) and to exclusively formula-feed after delivery (2.4 [1.3-4.2]) and 3 months postpartum (1.3 [0.98-1.8]). The odds ratio for intending and practicing partial (vs exclusive) breastfeeding did not differ by religious affiliation at most examined time points. Associations of Protestant women with infant feeding exhibited estimates closer to unaffiliated than to Catholic women. CONCLUSIONS: Catholic women are more at risk to intend and practice exclusive formula feeding than women of other religious affiliations. Our findings may help health care practitioners adapt their breastfeeding promotion to the mother's religious affiliation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".