Experiences of At-Risk Women in Accessing Breastfeeding Social Support During the Covid-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With strict public health measures implemented in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many breastfeeding parents, who are within an at-risk population, have experienced limited formal and/or informal breastfeeding social support. In the Canadian context, the experiences of these women is unknown. RESEARCH AIM: To explore the experiences of at-risk postpartum breastfeeding women in accessing formal and informal breastfeeding social support during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a prospective, longitudinal interpretive description study using mixed methods. Data were gathered using an online survey and one 52-112-min semi-structured interview at 12-weeks postpartum. At-risk breastfeeding participants were those who lack social support and had at least one of the following: age < 25 years; experiencing or had experienced intimate partner violence; or of low income. We sought participants' experiences of accessing breastfeeding social support during the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic/lockdown. Seven participants completed the survey and the interview. RESULTS: Participants identified that the COVID-19 pandemic created barriers to accessing formal and informal breastfeeding social support, which stemmed from public health restrictions and difficulties communicating online with families and healthcare providers. Additionally, participants identified that the COVID-19 pandemic/lockdowns facilitated feelings of connectedness, protection, and resiliency. CONCLUSION: We provide preliminary insight into the experiences of trying to access breastfeeding social support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future researchers should seek to prioritize improved communication and resources in supporting breastfeeding during COVID-19 and future pandemics/lockdowns.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".