Health care provider support and factors associated with breastfeeding beyond infancy: A cross‐national study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding beyond infancy (12 months) remains atypical in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, and the role of health care providers is unclear. The objective of this study was to compare women's perceptions of provider support and other factors affecting breastfeeding beyond infancy across countries, among women who had each successfully breastfed at least one child that long. METHODS: Women completed an online questionnaire distributed via La Leche League, USA (2013), about sources and ratings of support for breastfeeding for their oldest child who was breastfed at least 12 months and participant demographics. Multivariable log-binomial regression was used to compare ratings of health care provider support and the importance of 13 factors by country. RESULTS: Some similarities and many differences were observed across countries in support received from providers, whereas modest or no differences were observed in the importance women placed on factors like health benefits and enjoyment of breastfeeding. Of 59 581 women, less than half discussed their decision to breastfeed beyond infancy with their child's provider. United Kingdom women rated their comfort in discussing breastfeeding beyond 12 months with their providers and the support received as lower than United States women. Canadian women gave lower ratings than United States women, but inconsistently. Australian women rarely differed from United States women in their responses. Providers' recommendations were not important to the decision to breastfeed beyond infancy, especially for United Kingdom women. DISCUSSION: Rates of breastfeeding beyond infancy are low in these countries; improving provider support may help achieve global breastfeeding goals.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".