MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200103622 · doi:10.1186/s12905-021-01580-2

Level of exclusive breastfeeding and its enabling factors among lactating women who delivered in health facilities of Asosa town, Ethiopia: a cross sectional study

2021· article· en· W4200103622 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Megersa Kumera, Jemal Haidar

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Women s Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineCross-sectional studyLogistic regressionQuarter (Canadian coin)DemographyConfidence intervalEnvironmental healthHealth facilityPediatricsGeographyPopulationHealth services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the enormous benefit of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) to mothers and infants, the practice of exclusive breastfeeding is globally low. In sub-Saharan Africa and Ethiopia, the prevalence of EBF stands at 35% and 59%, respectively. The low EBF practice in Ethiopia as well as in the studied region calls for further study and thus we studied the EBF practice in the study area since little is known about its current magnitude and factors influencing its practice for some programmatic improvements. METHODS: A facility based cross-sectional study linked to a community was conducted from June-July 2019 among 412 mothers who had antenatal follow-up and delivered in health facilities of Asosa town over a period of one year prior to the study. Data on socio demographic characteristics and other important variables were collected through face to face interview while gestational age in weeks was recorded from their medical chart by trained health extension workers in accordance with relevant ethical guidelines and regulations. The collected data were then cleaned and entered into Epi-data software version 3.02. Analysis was done by SPSS version 20. Binary and multivariate logistic regression were performed to identify the contributing factors. P-value of less than 0.05 and 95% confidence interval was considered to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: Of the 412 respondents, the majority (88.1%) were multi-gravida and above. Slightly higher than a quarter (26.0%) and over half (55.4%) had neither received antenatal nor postnatal care. The proportion of mothers who exclusively breastfed their children was 76.0% and the overall aggregated good practice of EBF score was 64.1%. Mothers who completed primary school [AOR = 4.5; 95% CI = 1.1,18.2], had four or more ANC [AOR = 1.8;95CI = 0.79-0.98], and postnatal follow-up [AOR = 0.21;95% CI = 0.07-0.67], and had male infants [AOR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.0-4.95] were among the factors influencing the exclusive breastfeeding practice score. CONCLUSION: While three in four mothers exclusively breastfed their newborns and about two-thirds had good EBF score, the observed women's retention on the continuum of the maternal care pathway is low with one in four had no antenatal and over half had no postnatal care which are important derivers for EBF practice. To improve the EBF score and narrow the observed maternal and child health disparities, it is essential to promote maternal education and increase the recomended coverage of antenatal and postnatal care for mothers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Women s HealthSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207