MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390053802 · doi:10.1186/s13006-023-00608-7

Maternal disability and initiation and duration of breastfeeding: analysis of a Canadian cross-sectional survey

2023· article· en· W4390053802 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hilary K. Brown, Lesley A. Pablo, Natalie V. Scime, Amira Aker, Cindy‐Lee Dennis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Breastfeeding Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaThe Scarborough HospitalPublic Health OntarioWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineCross-sectional studyDemographyMarital statusPediatricsEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Breastfeeding JournalSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207