Practices, support and stigma related to infant feeding and postpartum engagement in care among women living with HIV in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breastfeeding is not recommended for women living with HIV (WLWH) in Canada. We described the prevalence of breastfeeding and explored experiences of care, support, and stigma related to infant feeding. Setting: Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia (Canada). Methods: Data were obtained from the HIV Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study (CHIWOS) surveys, conducted between 2013 and 2018. Results: Breastfeeding was reported by 73.5% of the 786 women who delivered before HIV diagnosis and 7.3% of the 289 women who delivered after HIV diagnosis. Among them, earlier year of delivery, delivery outside of Canada, and African, Caribbean, Black ethnicity were independently associated with increased odds of breastfeeding. Among WLWH who had a live birth during the last year, 77% (40/52) felt that they had received support regarding infant feeding practices, and 77% (23/30) were concerned that not breastfeeding could lead to them being identified as WLWH. Among 71 women within one year postpartum at any one of the study waves, 89% reported having an undetectable viral load. Conclusion: Breastfeeding experiences were common among WLWH, most often prior to HIV diagnosis. Fear of unintentional HIV status disclosure when not breastfeeding and challenges to maintain an undetectable HIV viral load are important issues to address during postpartum care.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".