MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035521791 · doi:10.1017/s002966512000107x

Early infant feeding practices in Ireland; current and secular analyses of infant feeding in two prospective birth cohort studies

2020· article· en· W3035521791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrea Hemmingway, Dawn Fisher, Teresa Berkery, Máiréad Kiely

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of The Nutrition Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineInfant feedingInfant formulaBreast feedingCohortPediatricsCohort studyBreast milkPopulationQuarter (Canadian coin)DemographyProspective cohort studyFamily medicineObstetricsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recognised as the optimum infant feeding method, breastfeeding affords substantial health benefits to mother and infant. Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended to 6 months, with continuation thereafter. In Ireland, data indicates that 60% breastfeed to any extent at hospital discharge and 40% do so at 3 months. However, nationally collected data is limited in detail, particularly with regard to breastfeeding continuation. The ongoing Cork-based COMBINE birth cohort study recruited 456 participants between 2015 and 2017. Through interviewer-led questionnaires, research midwives collected feeding data at hospital discharge, 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9 months of age. Infant feeding was classed as breast (breastmilk as main milk source), combination (both breastmilk and infant formula daily) or infant formula only feeding. Adherence to the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendation to exclusively breastfeed (breastmilk only, no infant formula, supplementary fluids or solid foods) was examined longitudinally. To explore secular changes, breastfeeding rates in COMBINE were compared to the BASELINE birth cohort study, which recruited participants ( n = 2116) between 2008 and 2011 in the same setting. In COMBINE, 75% of mothers provided any breastmilk (breast or combination) at hospital discharge, of whom 44% breastfed only. Two-fifths (40%), one-third (33%) and one-quarter (24%) breastfed at 1, 4 and 6 months, respectively. Combination feeding of breastmilk and infant formula was prevalent at discharge (31%) and 1 month (20%). Advice from healthcare professionals (31%) and concern baby was hungry (30%) were commonly reported reasons for this practice and throughout the study, mothers who combination fed were more likely to stop breastfeeding altogether than those who breastfed (all P < 0.001). Infant formula only feeding increased from 25% at discharge to 40% at 1 month, 49% at 2 months and 74% at 9 months. Half (45%) of mothers who breastfed did so for less than 4 months and insufficient milk/growth faltering was the most commonly cited reason for cessation (27%). The rate of WHO-defined exclusive breastfeeding was 40% from birth to discharge, 22% to 1 month, 15% to 4 months and 2% to 6 months. The breastfeeding (breastmilk as main milk source) rate at discharge did not differ between our two birth cohorts (44 vs. 40%, P = 0.23), but was significantly higher in COMBINE compared to BASELINE at 2 (36 vs. 27%) and 6 (24 vs. 12%) months (both P < 0.05). While these data provide evidence of some progress towards longer breastfeeding durations, there remains much scope to improve infant feeding practices in Ireland.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of The Nutrition SocietySame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207