MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284881535 · doi:10.1016/j.eurox.2022.100160

Antenatal breastfeeding promotion amongst pregnancies at high-risk for newborn admission to the NICU: A cross-sectional study

2022· article· en· W4284881535 on OpenAlexaff
Christy Pylypjuk, Anna Bokhanchuk, Chelsea Day, Yasmine ElSalakawy, Mary Seshia

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology X · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineCross-sectional studyObstetricsPromotion (chess)Breastfeeding promotionNursingPediatricsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To determine the prevalence and factors associated with antenatal promotion of breastfeeding in high-risk pregnancies. Study design: This was a cross-sectional study of trends in breastfeeding promotion during antenatal consultation of pregnancies at high-risk for newborn admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) between January 2017 and December 2020. Eligible high-risk pregnant patients undergoing antenatal consultation in a tertiary-level fetal assessment unit were identified using an electronic clinic repository. Consult letters and fetal assessment reports were reviewed to determine baseline demographics, pregnancy history, fetal findings, and communication about breastfeeding. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to present findings and compare outcomes between groups. Results: 316 pregnancies were included for final analysis. The mean maternal age was 28.7 years (SD 6.2) and 65 % were multiparas. Median gestational age at time of antenatal consult was 32 weeks [IQR 29-34]. The main indication for consultation was fetal anomalies (72.8%), namely cardiac defects (21.2 %). There was a significant improvement in prevalence of antenatal discussions about breastfeeding over the study period, from 48.8 % early in the study period compared to 73.7 % in the past year (p = 0.036). However, amongst consults where breastfeeding was discussed, almost one-quarter (23.8 %) of patients indicated that they were not planning on breastfeeding postnatally. Conclusion: There has been a significant improvement in promoting breastfeeding antenatally amongst high-risk pregnancies. However, no follow-up or supports were offered to one-quarter of patients who indicated no intention of breastfeeding or using donor milk postnatally. Ongoing work is required to further advance breastfeeding promotion antenatally, increase parental supports and education, and optimize breastfeeding rates postnatally for improving outcomes of this high-risk group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology XSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207