The Association Between Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy and Mode of Infant Feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: It is well established that low breastfeeding self-efficacy is associated with early breastfeeding cessation. Over the past several decades, expressed human milk feeding has increased among parents of healthy infants. Researchers have hypothesized an association between maternal breastfeeding confidence and expressed human milk feeding, but it has not been empirically examined. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the associations between breastfeeding self-efficacy and human milk expression practices. The secondary objective was to assess the effect of breastfeeding self-efficacy on breastfeeding duration and exclusivity. Methods: This study used a prospective cohort design. From 2017 to 2018, we recruited 821 healthy mothers with term births in two public hospitals in Hong Kong. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire in the immediate postpartum period, which gathered information about sociodemographic characteristics and Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form (BSES-SF). Participants were followed up for 6 months or until infants were weaned. The proportion and type of infant feeding were assessed at telephone follow-up. Results: The overall mean BSES-SF score in our sample was 46.5 (standard deviation = 10.1). Every one-point increase in the BSES-SF score was associated with 4–5% lower risk of any expressed human milk feeding and 4–7% higher odds of breastfeeding continuation across the first 6 months postpartum. Conclusion: Higher breastfeeding self-efficacy is associated with a lower risk of expressed human milk feeding and a longer duration of any and exclusive breastfeeding. Further studies should explore how improving breastfeeding self-efficacy may affect the mode of human milk feeding.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".