Contextualizing the Health Promotion of Breastfeeding: An integrative Review of Parent and Provider experiences in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving the rates of breastfeeding has been a prime interest of Public Health Nurses focusing on health promotional strategies as outlined by the World Health Organization. However, evidence of the perceptions held by perinatal families regarding the encouragement to breastfeed is lacking. With the goal of uncovering existing research, an integrative review was conducted, retrieving nine studies. Themes included: variables of delivery (beliefs and ambiguity), outcomes of receivers (expectations, emotions, empowerment verses pressure), and contextual factors (social, cultural, and political forces). Notable differences between the experiences of women in differing social locations were found. The results demonstrate a need for professionals and policymakers to consider the nuanced ways in which individuals experience breastfeeding health promotional messaging. Unintended impacts of this strategy potentially widen breastfeeding inequities between the groups most and least advantaged in society. The diversity of Canadians was found to be vastly underrepresented in the literature.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".