Breastfeeding experiences of patients in baby-friendly certified hospital settings: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative is a global programme that is meant to support breastfeeding within organisations. Most of the current literature is focused on implementation and uptake of the programme; however, little is known about the patient experience of breastfeeding within these settings. By exploring this current gap in the literature, we may discover important contextual elements of the breastfeeding experience. The objective of this protocol is to provide a framework for a scoping review where we aim to understand the extent and type of evidence in relation to the patient experience of breastfeeding in Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI)-certified settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. The databases to be searched for relevant literature include MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus in April 2023. A grey literature scan will include reviewing documents from professional organisations/associations. For all sources of evidence that meet the inclusion criteria, data will be extracted and presented in a table format. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Participants in this review will include any individual who delivered their baby in a BFHI-certified setting. Exploring the patient experience will involve reviewing their subjective perceptions of events related to breastfeeding. These events must occur in a BFHI-certified hospital, and therefore, home births and other outpatient settings will be excluded. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review protocol or the final review. Knowledge gained from this research will be disseminated through the primary author's PhD dissertation work, as well as manuscript publications and conference presentations.
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 | 0.109 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.014 |
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".