Partners with a Highly Favorable Attitude Toward Breastfeeding Contribute to Promoting Initiation and Length of Breastfeeding for More than 5 Months in a Population-Based Canadian Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:Promoting maternal breastfeeding for at least 6 months is important to improve children physical health during infancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes in childhood. For this guideline to be followed, it is paramount to identify what factors best support the initiation and length of breastfeeding. This study estimates the contribution of various child- and parent-level factors, as well as the sociodemographic context in predicting maternal breastfeeding initiation and duration. Methods:This study draws on data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development. Mothers who never breastfed when the infant was 5 months old (n = 630, 28.3%) were compared to mothers who breastfed for less than 5 months (n = 844, 38.0%) and mothers breastfeeding for more than 5 months (n = 749, 33.7%), using multivariable multinomial regression models. Results:Mothers with a partner showing a positive attitude toward breastfeeding were up to 13 times more likely to breastfeed their infant for more than 5 months. The positive attitude of partners toward breastfeeding was the strongest predictor of breastfeeding duration, followed by the maternal educational attainment and timing she returns to work. Most prenatal and perinatal child-level factors and the sociodemographic context predicted breastfeeding duration, but to a lesser extent. Discussion:This finding underscores the role of the partner's attitude in promoting initiation and length of breastfeeding. As such, educational campaigns and health practitioners could target both the mother and their partner in promoting breastfeeding.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".