Effect of intimate partner violence on breast feeding practices: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the study was to determine the correlation between breastfeeding practices and intimate partner violence (IPV). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in Google Scholar, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PubMed, focusing on articles published in English from 2000 to 2023. The review included original cohort and cross-sectional studies that assessed the impact of IPV (sexual, emotional, and/or physical) on breastfeeding practices. The quality of the included articles was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: The review incorporated 22 original articles (16 cohort and 6 cross-sectional) from various countries. Different forms of IPV, including physical, emotional, and sexual violence, were examined. Out of these studies, 19 reported a negative impact of IPV on breastfeeding practices, including delayed breastfeeding initiation, early cessation, lower intention to exclusively breastfeed, and shorter breastfeeding duration among mothers who experienced IPV. The quality assessment revealed that only two of the six cross-sectional studies were of fair quality, while the rest were good to fair. For cohort studies, only five were satisfactory, with overall quality ranging from fair to poor. Most studies indicated that IPV, at any stage and in any form, was associated with unfavorable breastfeeding outcomes. This was particularly evident in low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya, Zimbabwe,Nepal, India, Nigeria, and Bangladesh. Determinants like maternal education, age, delivery mode, and employment also influenced breastfeeding initiation. Conclusion: The review concluded that IPV exposure is significantly related to poor breastfeeding practices. It highlighted the need for individual study meta-analyses to quantify the correlation between IPV and breastfeeding practices. Additionally, it called for more high-quality longitudinal studies that control for potential confounders to better understand this relationship. Keywords: Breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding, domesticviolence, intimate partner violence, spousal abuse
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".