Knowledge and Use of Paced Bottle-Feeding Among Mothers of Young Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe mothers' awareness and use of paced bottle-feeding (PBF) and to investigate whether the use of PBF was associated with maternal characteristics and infant feeding practices. METHODS: Cross-sectional, online survey. Participants were mothers of infants < 12 months of age (n = 197). Participants self-reported their awareness and use of PBF, demographic characteristics, and infant feeding practices. RESULTS: Of the 41% of participants who indicated they had or maybe had heard of PBF, 23% used PBF and 35% sometimes used PBF. Use of PBF was not associated with mother or infant characteristics. Participants who used PBF were significantly less likely to encourage their infant to finish the bottle (odds ratio, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.79). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Paced bottle-feeding was associated with lower likelihood of one dimension of pressuring feeding practices, encouraging infant bottle-emptying. More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of PBF in promoting healthy feeding outcomes.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".