Educational Resources and Curriculum on Lactation for Health Undergraduate Students: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding is a fundamental component of health care, and health professionals need to be adequately prepared. As part of the system, health care professionals have the ability to influence the establishment and maintenance of breastfeeding. The global literature regarding the curricular approach or established best practices for health professional education in lactation is inconclusive and lacking in rigor. RESEARCH AIM: To explore the literature for the educational resources, methods, and curriculum used in the education of undergraduate health students related to lactation. METHODS: A scoping review examining the curricular programs of health professional students in lactation was undertaken exploring and summarizing evidence from peer reviewed and grey literature. A scoping review with a five-stage review process was followed. The database search between 1982-2018 generated 625 results, 79 full-text articles were reviewed, and 29 articles published in English met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: In general, educational resources, methods, curricular approaches, and foundational topics were based on best practice standards. Some authors incorporated a variety of learning methods and provided experiential learning, with evidence of translation of knowledge into clinical practice. In the studies examined, researchers reported that students had improved their: knowledge and attitudes (59%); breastfeeding support skills (45%); and confidence (10%). However, even in programs that focused on developing students' breastfeeding support skills, authors reported a lack of change in students' confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Although only English articles met the inclusion criteria, this review was unique in its search of multidisciplinary, multilingual, and international studies. Consistency in teaching across disciplines is key and not evident in the studies reviewed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".