MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Longitudinal Study on Breastfeeding Practice among Women Living in Western Saudi Arabia

2019· article· en· W3011177568 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anwaar Shahbar, Suhad Bahijri, Noura Eid

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Child Health and Nutrition · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreastfeedingLongitudinal studyDemographyEnvironmental healthFamily medicineGerontologyPediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a longitudinal study of breastfeeding at two private hospitals in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Soliman Fakeeh (SF) follows the WHO's baby-friendly hospital initiative (BFHI), Saudi Germany Hospital (SGH) does not. Participants were 102 women in both hospitals (52 BFHI, 50 non-BFHI). Two semi-quantitative questionnaires, translated into Arabic, were used at baseline and one month postpartum. Results showed that most women in the study have initiated breastfeeding but turned to mixed feedings after one month. We also found that self-efficacy has the biggest influence on breastfeeding practice at one month, measured by the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale (BSES) and regardless of other variables. The BFHI made breast milk the first nutritive substance infants received and had a higher percentage of early initiation of breastfeeding than the non-BFHI. The BFHI hospital supported women to breastfeed practically and educationally. Support was provided by books, internet, and educational sessions. Yet, any effects no longer existed at one month postpartum, at which point most women had shifted to mixed feeding. There was no relationship between the BSES and BFHI status. Thus, we recommend developing breastfeeding promotion programs before delivery and at least a six-months follow-up after delivery, in addition to peer counselling approaches.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Child Health and NutritionSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207