Use of Expressed Breastmilk at Two Weeks Postpartum Is Associated With Early Cessation and Non-exclusive Breastmilk Feeding for Six Months in a Cohort of Vulnerable Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pumping and feeding expressed breastmilk (EBM) in the early postpartum period are common but may not support longer-term breastfeeding outcomes. Our objectives were to examine in a cohort of vulnerable mothers of term-born infants: i) the prevalence of EBM feeding; and ii) associations between EBM use at two weeks and any and exclusive breastmilk feeding over the first six months postpartum. We pooled data from two studies conducted with participants (n = 316) at three Toronto sites implementing the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program, an initiative targeting vulnerable families. Socio-demographic data were collected prenatally or at two weeks postpartum. Household food insecurity was assessed at six months using the Canadian Community Health Survey module. A standardized questionnaire was administered prospectively at two weeks and two, four and six months postpartum to collect data on infant feeding practices in the previous two weeks. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were performed. The mean age of participants was 32 years, 91% were born outside Canada and 38% had lived in Canada less than three years. Nearly half (44%) reported household food insecurity. All participants initiated breastfeeding and 34% reported EBM use at two weeks postpartum. This declined to 24% at two months, 14% at four months and 8% at six months postpartum. Over the six-month follow-up period, 20% discontinued any breastmilk feeding and only 16% practiced exclusive breastmilk feeding. In adjusted models, EBM use at two weeks was associated with breastmilk feeding cessation (OR 2.75; 95% CI: 1.4–5.2) and non-exclusive breastmilk feeding for six months postpartum (OR 4.32; 95% CI 1.8–10.5). EBM use in the first two weeks was a predictor of early cessation and non-exclusive breastmilk feeding for six months postpartum in our cohort of vulnerable women living in an urban Canadian context and accessing prenatal nutrition programs. Further research is needed to determine whether early EBM use is a marker for breastfeeding difficulties or undermines longer-term breastfeeding outcomes. Canadian Institutes of Health Research; The Sprott Foundation: Joannah and Brian Lawson Centre for Child Nutrition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".