Does breastfeeding self‐efficacy theory apply to mothers of moderate and late preterm infants? A qualitative exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breastmilk feeding reduces morbidities and improves outcomes related to prematurity. However, breastmilk feeding rates in preterm infants are substantially lower than those in term infants. Breastfeeding self-efficacy theory is a social change theory, which is predictive of exclusive breastmilk feeding at 2 months postpartum in mothers of full-term infants. However, this theory has not been well explored in mothers of moderate and late preterm infants. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: weeks' GA) in neonatal intensive care units and assess applicability of breastfeeding self-efficacy theory. METHODS: weeks, who experienced high mean differences in their BSE scores between admission and discharge. Fourteen mothers participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Data were examined using thematic analysis. To explore and describe breastfeeding self-efficacy within the context of neonatal intensive care units, we super-imposed the four sources of information from breastfeeding self-efficacy theory onto the defined themes. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: (a) institutional influences, (b) relationship with the pump and (c) establishing breastfeeding, with an emphasis on the importance of direct breastfeeding at discharge. Overlaying the four sources of information from breastfeeding self-efficacy highlighted the presence of three sources of information: verbal persuasion, performance accomplishment and physiologic/affective responses. Vicarious experience was not identified in maternal experiences with infant feeding. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that breastfeeding self-efficacy is an applicable theory for mothers of preterm infants. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Healthcare providers need to be aware of the influence that institutional culture and policies may have on maternal breastfeeding self-efficacy and breastfeeding outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".