Experiences of breast feeding at work for physicians, residents and medical students: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review and summarise the available literature regarding breastfeeding experiences of medical students, residents and physicians. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles of any design, including non-peer reviewed data that examine the experiences of breast feeding of medical students, residents and staff physicians. INFORMATION SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science. RISK OF BIAS: All peer-reviewed studies underwent risk-of-bias assessment using relevant tools, depending on the study design. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 71 citations; 51 surveys, 3 narrative descriptions, 9 editorials or letters to the editor, and 3 reviews. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Included articles were heterogeneous with respect to their study design, target population and outcomes reported. Most articles had a high risk of bias. Only five articles reported the impact of an intervention. DESCRIPTION OF EFFECT: Despite heterogeneity, the majority of articles described important barriers to breast feeding for physicians, residents and medical students. These barriers were similar across studies, and included inadequate and inaccessible space, time constraints and inflexible scheduling, and lack of colleague support. The consequences of these barriers included low milk supply and early discontinuation of breast feeding. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF EVIDENCE: Due to the observed heterogeneity of articles identified in this review, we are unable to assess trends in barriers or duration of breastfeeding over time. INTERPRETATION: Interventions to overcome systemic and cultural barriers to breast feeding are needed to meet legal obligations of workplaces for physicians and trainees. These interventions should be formally evaluated using implementation science or quality improvement methods.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".