Humanitarian aid and breastfeeding practices of displaced mothers: a qualitative study in disaster relief camps
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During disasters and displacement, affected families often receive humanitarian aid from governmental and nongovernmental organizations and donor agencies. Little information is available on the effects of humanitarian aid on the breastfeeding practices of mothers affected by disaster and displacement. AIMS: The aim of this study was to explore the effects of humanitarian aid on the breastfeeding practices of displaced mothers affected by natural disasters in Chitral, Pakistan. METHODS: This was qualitative study of residents of four villages of Chitral who had experienced a recent flood and later an earthquake. Data were collected through field observations, analysis of various documents (e.g. aid-agency documents, published reports and newspaper articles) and in-depth interviews with 18 internally displaced mothers living in disaster relief camps in Chitral. RESULTS: Three main themes developed from the data: humanitarian aid as a life saver, insufficient humanitarian aid affecting breastfeeding, and systemic injustices in the distribution of humanitarian aid. CONCLUSION: Although humanitarian aid facilitated the survival, health and well-being of the displaced mothers and their family members, there were various problems with the humanitarian aid that increased the vulnerability of the displaced mothers and negatively affected their breastfeeding practices. Humanitarian aid must be gender-sensitive, thoughtful, timely, needs-based, equitable and context-specific. A systematic process of aid allocation and restricted donation of formula milk or any other form of breast-milk substitute is recommended during disasters.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it