Barriers Affecting Breastfeeding Practices of Refugee Mothers: A Critical Ethnography in Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refugee mothers are vulnerable to cultural stereotyping and socioeconomic hardships when they migrate to a new country. This vulnerability often has a negative impact on refugee mothers' breastfeeding practices. Saskatchewan is one of the growing provinces in Canada that has a noticeable increase in refugee population with young children and limited availability of healthcare settings with baby-friendly status. Considering existing gaps in knowledge, this critical ethnographic study aimed to explore barriers that impede the breastfeeding practices of refugee mothers in Saskatchewan. After seeking ethics approval, data were collected using multiple methods, including in-depth interviews undertaken with 27 refugee mothers with young children of age range 1 day to 24 months, a review of media communications and field observations of community-based services/facilities available to refugee mothers. Findings suggest that psychosocial barriers, healthcare barriers, environmental barriers, and maternal and child health-related barriers impede the breastfeeding practices of refugee mothers in Saskatchewan. Breastfeeding practices of refugee mothers can be promoted through healthcare support, culturally appropriate services, interpretation services in healthcare settings, implementation of baby-friendly initiatives, hospital and community-based breastfeeding campaigns, and follow-up services. Collaborative efforts by healthcare settings, healthcare providers, policymakers, public health agencies, service providers, and governments are essential to support the breastfeeding practices of refugee mothers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".