The Content and Sources of Breastfeeding Knowledge for New Mothers in the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the context of decreasing breastfeeding rates and unsuccessful breastfeeding promotion campaigns, a qualitative research project in the Northern part of the Netherlands was initiated. Objectives: As part of the overall project, the aim of this study was to explore the content and sources of breastfeeding knowledge among primiparous women. Identifying and categorizing the content and the sources of breastfeeding knowledge could guide professionals such as midwives and maternity nurses as well as others in the women’s surroundings to engage in disseminating knowledge and therefore support women in achieving their breastfeeding goals. Methods: We conducted 26 in-depth interviews from the emic perspective with 13 new mothers pre- and postpartum, up to saturation level. Transcripts were analysed applying thematic analysis. As sensitising concepts, the themes identified were divided into two categories: those gained from 'professional' sources and those obtained from 'popular' sources. Results: Five knowledge content themes were identified: (1) pros and cons of breastfeeding, (2) how breastfeeding works, (3) individual breastfeeding practice, (4) expressing milk, and (5) formula feeding. ‘Professional’ sources are perceived as more helpful than ‘popular’ sources, whereas ‘intuition’ was inductively identified as an important knowledge source. Conclusion: Limited breastfeeding practice exposure, along with the recommendations to breastfeed for six months and perceptions of breastfeeding as ‘natural’ at the same time, generates much pressure in women. Emphasizing all knowledge content in campaigns, addressing a variety of target groups in women’s social environment, and recognizing intuition as an adequate source of knowledge supported by professionals will facilitate women in making informed infant feeding decisions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".