Exploration of Breastfeeding Practices in India: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Breastfeeding is essential and a unique way of providing food to infants for development and healthy growth. Various breastfeeding practices are followed in different regions of India. Objective: This study aims to collect the information for practices related to prelacteal feed, early initiation of breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding, and weaning in India. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, Clinical key, the Cochrane Library, and Science Direct databases to identify studies on practices related to the initiation of early breastfeeding, prelacteal feed, Exclusive Breastfeeding (EBF) practices, and weaning as outcomes. Quality assessment of each study was done by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Twenty-four studies were included in this systematic review. Seven studies reported an early initiation of breastfeeding within 1-6 hours of birth. Six studies reported various prelacteal foods given to infants, such as tea, boiled water, honey, sugar, jaggery, or glucose with plain water and diluted animal milk. Four studies stated that exclusive breastfeeding was a suboptimal practice, often continued for less than six months for reasons like working mothers (not enough time for breastfeeding), traditional beliefs, and inadequate milk output. Four studies explored the causes of early onset of weaning, and the most common reasons were initiation of supplementary feeding before six months, insufficient breastmilk, and lack of knowledge. Conclusion: Overall, the results of the individual studies indicate that unhealthy breastfeeding practices such as prelacteal feeding, suboptimal exclusive breastfeeding, and early initiation of weaning practices were prevalent and almost the same across India.
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 | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".