Pathways linking social support, self-efficacy, and exclusive breastfeeding among women in northern Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite improvements in infant feeding practices over the past two decades, the prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) is below global targets. Social support can create an enabling environment for recommended infant feeding practices such as EBF, but the types of social support most important for sustained EBF and their potential mechanisms of action have not been thoroughly characterized. We therefore aimed to assess the relationship between EBF-specific social support, EBF self-efficacy, and EBF at 1 and 3 months among postpartum women in northern Uganda. Women (n = 238, 36.2% living with HIV) were recruited during pregnancy. EBF, social support, and EBF self-efficacy were assessed at 1 and 3 months postpartum. Path analysis was used to assess relationships between these factors. Most mothers exclusively breastfed to 1 (80.8%) and 3 months postpartum (62.9%). EBF-specific, but not general, social support differed by EBF status. EBF-specific social support was associated with higher odds of EBF, which was almost fully mediated by EBF self-efficacy. That is, there was evidence that social support primarily influences EBF through its association with self-efficacy. In sum, EBF-specific social support and self-efficacy likely promote EBF and are modifiable factors that can be intervened upon.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".