Is there room for mothers' agency in the choice to breastfeed? An analysis of mothers’s views on health messages promoting breastfeeding in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This exploratory cross-sectional study focuses on the experiences of mothers regarding health messages promoting breastfeeding. The objective is to describe the content and context in which messages are conveyed. METHODS: A total of 944 new mothers responded to a questionnaire (15-31 January 2021) on their perception of health messages promoting breastfeeding and their feeling of agreement towards these messages, their intention to breastfeed, incentives received, and their relationship with the professionals. Frequencies were carried out for all non-textual data and textual data were analyzed using content thematic analysis. The recruitment was made through social media and snowball effect. RESULTS: Most of the respondents reported wanting to breastfeed; 91% breastfed their child, 80.8% participants agreed with the messages they received, and 67.9% of respondents strongly agreeing that breastfeeding was the best choice for their child. Moreover, the content of the messages could sometimes be judgmental and coercive, leading to emotions such as guilt. Sixty-two women also reported a lack of support when they expressed their desire or their need to feed their baby in other ways (e.g. breastmilk with bottles or formulas). CONCLUSIONS: The perceived issue of breastfeeding messages was not the content itself, but the way in which information was conveyed. Failure to take mothers' difficulties into account and failure to present alternatives to breastfeeding were seen as major issues by women. This study highlights the importance of rethinking the way in which information is provided by professionals, in order to reinforce the autonomy of new mothers regarding the feeding of their child.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".