Factors associated with breast-feeding initiation and continuation in Canadian-born and non-Canadian-born women: a multi-centre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with breast-feeding initiation and continuation in Canadian-born and non-Canadian-born women. DESIGN: Prospective cohort of mothers and infants born from 2008 to 2012: the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) Cohort Study. SETTING: General community setting in four Canadian provinces. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 3455 pregnant women from Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Toronto between 2008 and 2012. RESULTS: Of 3010 participants included in the current study, the majority were Canadian-born (75·5 %). Breast-feeding initiation rates were high in both non-Canadian-born (95·5 %) and Canadian-born participants (92·7 %). The median breast-feeding duration was 10 months in Canadian-born participants and 11 months in non-Canadian-born participants. Among Canadian-born participants, factors associated with breast-feeding initiation and continuation were older maternal age, higher maternal education, living with their partner and recruitment site. Rooming-in during the hospital stay was also associated with higher rates of breast-feeding initiation, but not continuation at 6-month postpartum. Factors associated with non-initiation of breast-feeding and cessation at 6-month postpartum were maternal smoking, living with a current smoker, caesarean birth and early-term birth. Among non-Canadian-born participants, maternal smoking during pregnancy was associated with lower odds of breast-feeding initiation and lower odds of breast-feeding continuation at 6 months, and older maternal age and recruitment site were associated with breast-feeding continuation at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Although Canadian-born and non-Canadian-born women in the CHILD cohort have similar breast-feeding initiation rates, breast-feeding initiation and continuation are more strongly associated with socio-demographic characteristics in Canadian-born participants. Recruitment site was strongly associated with breast-feeding continuation in both groups and may indicate geographic disparities in breast-feeding rates nationally.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".