The Role of Motor Coordination, ADHD-Related Characteristics and Temperament among Mothers and Infants in Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Cohort Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although exclusive breastfeeding is recommended for the first 6 months of life, breastfeeding rates are low. Motor skills and ADHD-related characteristics have not yet been examined as breastfeeding barriers. The aim of this study was to explore whether mothers’ and infants’ motor skills, mothers’ ADHD-related characteristics and infants’ temperament are associated with exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months after birth. Participants were 164 mothers and their infants recruited 2 days after birth. Mothers completed a demographic and delivery information questionnaire, the Infant Feeding Intentions Scale and the Iowa Infant Feeding Attitude Scale. At 6 months, mothers completed the Adult DCD (developmental coordination disorder)/Dyspraxia Checklist, the Adult ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) Self-Report Scale Symptom Checklist-v1.1, and the Infant Characteristics Questionnaire, and provided information about their breastfeeding status. They were then divided into two groups accordingly: EBF (exclusive breastfeeding) and NEBF (non-exclusive breastfeeding). Infants were observed using the Test of Sensory Functions in Infants and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. At 6 months, NEBF mothers reported higher prevalence of DCD (10.2% vs. 1.9%, χ2 = 5.561, p = 0.018) and ADHD (20.3% vs. 8.6%, χ2 = 4.680, p = 0.030) compared to EBF mothers. EBF infants demonstrated better motor coordination (t = 2.47, p = 0.016, d = 0.511), but no temperament differences compared to NEBF infants. Maternal DCD, ADHD and poor infant motor coordination are associated with non-exclusive breastfeeding and may become exclusive breastfeeding barriers. These findings may assist in identifying women at risk of not exclusively breastfeeding and encourage tailoring interventions for achieving higher exclusive breastfeeding rates.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".