Maternal disability and initiation and duration of breastfeeding: analysis of a Canadian cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding as the best method for infant feeding. Known risk factors for breastfeeding non-initiation and early cessation of breastfeeding are diverse and include low breastfeeding self-efficacy, poverty, smoking, obesity, and chronic illness. Although women with disabilities experience elevated rates of these risk factors, few studies have examined their breastfeeding outcomes. Our objective was to examine breastfeeding non-initiation and early cessation of breastfeeding in women with and without disabilities. METHODS: We used data from the 2017-2018 Canadian Community Health Survey. Included were n = 4,817 women aged 15-55 years who had a birth in the last five years, of whom 26.6% had a disability, ascertained using the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning. Prevalence ratios (aPR) of breastfeeding non-initiation, and of early cessation of any and exclusive breastfeeding before 6 months, were calculated for women with versus without disabilities. We also examined disability by severity (moderate/severe and mild, separately) and number of action domains impacted (≥ 2 and 1, separately). The main multivariable models were adjusted for maternal age, marital status, level of education, annual household income level, and immigrant status. RESULTS: There were no differences between women with and without disabilities in breastfeeding non-initiation (9.6% vs. 8.9%; aPR 0.88, 95% CI 0.63, 1.23). Women with disabilities were more likely to have early cessation of any (44.4% vs. 35.7%) and exclusive breastfeeding before 6 months (66.9% vs. 61.3%), with some attenuation in risk after adjustment for sociodemographic factors (aRR 1.15, 95% CI 0.99, 1.33 and aRR 1.07, 95% 0.98, 1.16, respectively). Disparities were larger for women with moderate/severe disabilities and disabilities in ≥ 2 domains, with differences attenuated by adjustment for socio-demographics. CONCLUSIONS: Women with disabilities, and particularly those with moderate/severe and multiple disabilities, could benefit from tailored, accessible breastfeeding supports that attend to the social determinants of health.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".