A Qualitative Exploration of the Reasons for Expressed Human Milk Feeding Informed by the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing prevalence of expressed human milk feeding. The reasons for expressed human milk feeding of healthy term infants may differ from those for preterm infants. The process of adopting expressed human milk feeding for healthy full-term infants has not been well-described in the existing literature. RESEARCH AIM: To describe the reasons for, and antecedents to, expressed human milk feeding among Chinese women who used a high proportion of expressed human milk for feeding. METHODS: = 25) who used a high proportion of expressed human milk feeding were recruited from a larger perspective cohort study in two public hospitals in Hong Kong. Semi-structured, in-depth, one-to-one interviews were conducted 2017-2018. Data collection and thematic analysis were guided by the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Theory. RESULTS: The authors conducted thematic analysis and identified six core themes: (1) perceived maternal roles; (2) breastfeeding role models; (3) negative feedback from social networks; (4) negative direct breastfeeding experiences; (5) expressed human milk feeding as a solution to a problem; and (6) advice from health care professionals to express human milk. These themes were consistent with the four antecedents of the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Theory (e.g., physiological and affective state, vicarious experiences, performance accomplishments, and verbal persuasion). CONCLUSIONS: The main reason for participants to feed expressed human milk was experiencing difficulties with direct breastfeeding. Expressed human milk feeding was used as an immediate solution for breastfeeding problems. Strengthening breastfeeding support in the early postpartum period may decrease the perceived need for human milk expression.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".