Intimate partner violence and breastfeeding: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The association between intimate partner violence (IPV) and breastfeeding is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to summarise the evidence of breastfeeding outcomes following exposure to IPV. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched for published studies without study design or language restrictions (up to July 2019) in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS and The Global Health Library. Studies assessing various breastfeeding outcomes (initiation, duration and exclusive breastfeeding) in women exposed to IPV in any form (physical, psychological or sexual) and at any stage (1 year pre-pregnancy, during or post-pregnancy) were included. Two authors independently selected the studies and conducted the quality appraisal by use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results were summarised taking precision and quality into account. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies (participants n=414 393) were included and they adjusted for a total of 48 different confounders. The majority of studies were cross-sectional (n=11) and most studies were judged to be fair/low quality. Four out of seven studies found that IPV exposure shortened breastfeeding duration (adjusted ORs/aORs=0.22 (95% CI: 0.05-0.85), 1.18 (95% CI: 1.01-1.37), 5.92 (95% CI: 1.72-27.98), 1.28 (95% CI: 1.18-1.39)). Further, 5/10 studies found that IPV led to early termination of exclusive breastfeeding (aORs=1.53 (95% CI: 1.01-23.1), 0.83 (95% CI: 0.71-0.96), 1.35 (95% CI: 1.07-1.71), 0.17 (95% CI: 0.07-0.4), 1839 (95% CI: 1.61-2911)) and 2/6 studies found that IPV significantly reduced breastfeeding initiation (aORs=2.00 (95% CI: 1.2-3.3), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.7-0.93)). CONCLUSION: IPV exposure appears to associate negatively with some breastfeeding outcomes. Individual patient data meta-analysis is required to quantify the magnitude of the association for specific IPV-outcome combinations. More high-quality studies and definition of core confounders are warranted. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019129353.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".