Infant-Feeding Practices Among Women Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in a Southern Nigerian Region: A Mixed Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective Infant survival depends on proper nutrition. Breastfeeding enhances infant health and offers some benefits to the mother as well. However, in the setting of the HIV pandemic, it is important to assess the benefits and the risk for each individual in choosing a feeding option. The purpose of this research was to determine the infant-feeding practices among women living with HIV/AIDS (WLWHA) and compare them with the general population of women. Methods A mixed comparative survey was conducted among 246 HIV-positive mothers nursing infants of at least one year of age. An equal number of matched HIV-negative women from the same locality were selected as controls. Quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) while qualitative findings were presented in a thematic approach. Results The prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) among WLWHA was 73.6% compared to 55.2% in the controls [p=0.002; chi-square (X2)=5.264]. Only 6.5% of WLWHA practiced exclusive replacement feeding (ERF). Vaginal birth was associated with increased odds for early initiation of breastfeeding [p=0.001; odds ratio (OR): 3.135; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.130 to 4.616]. Also, urban dwellers commenced breastfeeding earlier than women residing in rural communities (p=0.002; OR: 5.58; 95% CI: 3.85 to 8.07). Based on in-depth interviews, cultural influences and non-disclosure of HIV status to family members promoted mixed feeding. Concomitant intake of anti-tuberculosis drugs was a major reason for adopting ERF in some women. Conclusion There was a high prevalence of EBF among WLWHA. Counseling on infant feeding is an effective component of the Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission (PMTCT) programs. Cultural beliefs and fear of stigmatization are major challenges to infant nutrition in sero-exposed babies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".