Patterns of breastfeeding at 3 months postpartum in the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition (APrON) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infant feeding patterns are often characterized in simple ways, such as exclusive breast or formula feeding and mixed feeding (i.e. a combination of these 2 methods). However there is a paucity of information about how accurately these simple groupings reflect how women feed their infants. The purpose of this study was to examine patterns of breastfeeding from 3‐day prospective feeding diaries to describe how women feed their babies and to compare documented feeding patterns to intentions to breastfeed. The APrON study is a prospective study of women during pregnancy and their children. Women completed the Intentions to Breastfeed questionnaire in their 3 rd trimester from which a total score was calculated, with a higher score indicating stronger intentions. At 3 months postpartum women also completed a prospective breastfeeding diary which collected information on number of feeds, and duration and method of every feed over 3 days. A total of 1028 women completed both assessments. Women reported feeding their babies using combinations of up to 4 different methods (at breast, expressed breastmilk in a bottle, formula, mixed breastmilk and formula in the same bottle) in any one day. For the ongoing analyses women were categorized into 5 groups based on the number and type of feeds reported/day: 1) at breast only (n=584), 2) at breast and expressed breastmilk (n=214), 3) formula only (n=14), 4) mixed feeding using 2 methods (n=113) and, 5) mixed feeding using 3 or 4 methods (n=103). Higher intention to breastfeed scores were observed in women who reported feeding at breast only in the diaries, compared to all other feeding groups (all P=<0.01). There were no differences in the average number of daily feeds between the 5 method groups. However, the average daily duration of at breast feeds was longer in women who fed at breast only compared to those in any other method group. Women who fed ‘at breast and expressed milk’, ‘mixed feeding of 2 methods’ and ‘mixed feeding of 3 or 4 methods’ fed, on average, for 18 minutes, 17 minutes and 27 minutes less at breast per day, respectively, compared to women who fed at breast only (all P=<0.01). Women use many different combinations of methods within a day to feed their 3 month old babies. Using fewer groups to classify women ignores the ‘real life’ complexity of feeding patterns. Our data showed that those who used a combination of methods to feed their babies spent less time feeding at breast which could have consequences on their energy expenditure and therefore postpartum weight loss. The impact of these complex feeding patterns on maternal and child outcomes is an important area for further research. Support or Funding Information Megan Jarman is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from Alberta Innovates Health Solutions. Analyses reported in this abstract were also funded by Alberta Innovates‐Health Solutions through a Collaborative Research Innovation Opportunities Program Grant awarded to the ENRICH study team
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".