The significance of breastfeeding practices on postpartum depression risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Examine the relationship between breastfeeding practices (breastfeeding status and breastfeeding length) and postpartum depression (PPD) risk, after controlling for significant risk factors for PPD. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, correlational study design was used. Data was used from a national dataset using a subsample of women (n = 29,682) residing in 26 states in the United States that answered the 2016 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) questionnaire. A secondary analysis was conducted using descriptive and bivariate analyses, and a multiple logistic regression model. RESULTS: Women currently breastfeeding (AOR = 0.87 CI: 0.79-0.95, p = .001), and women who breastfed for longer periods of time (p = < .002) had a statistically significantly lower PPD risk compared to their counterparts, even after accounting for significant covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggest breastfeeding as a cost efficient and healthy behavior that can decrease a woman's risk for PPD. Nurses should educate and promote the maternal mental health benefits of breastfeeding in addition to the health benefits for the infant.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".