Baseline status regarding compliance with neo-BFHI recommendations in South African neonatal wards: a cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2009, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund issued a revised Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) package to encourage all healthcare facilities to promote the advice of exclusive breastfeeding. The scope of the BFHI was expanded to include neonatal units by the Nordic and Quebec Working Group. AIM: To determine the level of compliance with the recommendations outlined in the "Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative for neonatal wards" (Neo-BFHI) in the South African neonatal wards. METHOD: In this cross-sectional survey, the sample included neonatal wards (N = 33) from public and private hospital facilities. Using EasyTrial software, the Neo-BFHI self-assessment questionnaire was utilized to collect the data. The data was transferred to MS Excel (version 15.0.5127.1000) and analysed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 24. RESULTS: The South African median score for Neo-BFHI compliance was 77. Neonatal wards in public hospitals scored higher (85) than those in private hospitals (73). Neonatal wards in hospitals that were accredited Baby-friendly had higher compliance scores than those without accreditation. The country had the highest compliance scores (100, 90) on Guiding Principle 1 (respect towards mothers) and step 5 (breastfeeding support), respectively. However, it scored low (71, 58) on steps 4 (enhancing kangaroo mother care) and 7 (maternal infant "togetherness"), respectively. Level 1 and 2 care facilities scored significantly higher than level 3. CONCLUSION: Although South Africa successfully implemented the Neo-BFHI recommendations, private hospitals had a smaller number of BFHI-accredited facilities and lower compliance than public hospitals. Strategies should be developed to strengthen and improve BFHI accreditation and compliance, particularly in private hospitals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".