Protections and Social Support of Exclusive Breastfeeding for Mothers with COVID-19: Message for Health Promotion during The Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic is a concern regarding the potential failure of exclusive breastfeeding in mothers with COVID-19. This study reviews previous research describing the protective and social support practices of exclusive breastfeeding in mothers with COVID-19.Methods: A systematic search was conducted in March-June 2021 using databases such as Scopus and PubMed with a deadline of 2020-2021 that met the inclusion criteria. 462 articles which were then entered in the elimination stage until the final 16 articles were eligible for a full text review. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).Results: We identified 16 studies reporting 1,865 cases of maternal infection with COVID-19. An overview of breastfeeding protection practices is carried out through rooming-in and post-delivery skin contact. This practice includes implementing strict precautions such as wearing a mask, social distancing, and maintaining hand and breast hygiene. All babies born to mothers who practice breastfeeding protection are not infected with COVID-19. Social support from health workers, families and health care management cannot be overlooked in ensuring breastfeeding continues and precautions are followed. Conclusion: In mothers with COVID-19 breastfeeding is still recommended but must be supported by strict health protocols. Social support cannot be neglected to protect exclusive breastfeeding practices and ensure that COVID-19 precautions are adhered to.
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 | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".