Building a baby‐friendly community: Development, strategy, implementation and evaluation of a <scp>BFCI</scp> program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of the use of baby-friendly community initiative (BFCI) model on various stakeholders in the community. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental research design. METHOD: The study was conducted in public premises and online workshops from April 2019 to September 2022. Participants were followed up for a period of 1 month, except for those employed at public premises. The program involved training based on an accredited BFCI framework to cultivate a breastfeeding-friendly attitude and knowledge. A paired sample t-test was used to examine breastfeeding attitude and knowledge scores before and after BFCI training among staff employed from public premises. An analysis of variance was conducted to examine the breastfeeding self-efficacy and attitude scores, measured repeatedly at different timepoints over 1-month timepoint (T0, T1 and T2) among pregnant and postpartum women. RESULTS: A total of 2340 perinatal women and 1339 staff from public premises were recruited. For staff, there was an increase in the mean score of breastfeeding knowledge and attitude by 5.8 and 6.1, respectively, at T1. Similarly, for perinatal women, there was an increase in the mean score of breastfeeding self-efficacy and attitude by 6.6 and 3.3, respectively, at T1. CONCLUSION: In summary, a BFCI model, with active community participation, accreditation and an award system, has been effective in promoting breastfeeding. Adapting the baby-friendly hospital initiative to local contexts and employing a social theory model can enhance breastfeeding promotion and improve infant health outcomes. Prioritizing culturally sensitive breastfeeding education is crucial for successful BFCI implementation. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Healthcare professionals should consider clients' culture and socio-economic backgrounds when providing breastfeeding education to maximize effectiveness. The target audience for breastfeeding education should be expanded to include various community stakeholders beyond families. IMPACT: What problem did the study address? This study addressed the problem of knowledge gaps among stakeholders in building a breastfeeding-friendly community, particularly in implementing a baby-friendly community initiative (BFCI) as part of a baby-friendly hospital initiative (BFHI). The research filled a service gap by providing effective interventions targeting community stakeholders and assessing the impact of a BFCI program on their knowledge and attitudes towards breastfeeding. What were the main findings? The findings highlighted the effectiveness of a BFCI program in enhancing breastfeeding knowledge and attitudes among frontline staff and increasing breastfeeding confidence among mothers. These findings contribute to the understanding of the program's impact on different stakeholders in the community. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? It impacts on global policymakers by providing insights for developing comprehensive guidelines for future BFCI implementations. It also contributes to the creation of a more baby-friendly community, benefiting breastfeeding families and their infants by promoting and supporting breastfeeding families. REPORTING METHOD: This study has adhered to relevant EQUATOR guidelines using the TREND reporting guideline. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER CONTRIBUTE TO THE WIDER GLOBAL CLINICAL COMMUNITY?: This study provides an overview of the establishment of a localized BFCI program. It also opens up a new direction for the community to investigate BFCI strategies for community stakeholders. It also provides evidence to support other countries in following a similar process, as each country approaches becoming breastfeeding-friendly in its own unique way. TRIAL AND PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: No protocol.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".