MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406125887 · doi:10.11124/jbies-24-00079

Factors influencing direct breastfeeding of preterm infants in neonatal wards and the provision of breastfeeding support: a qualitative systematic review protocol

2025· article· en· W4406125887 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Crump, Guillaume Fontaine, Meagan Mooney, Sabine Calleja, Nancy Feeley, Sonia Semenic

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreJewish General HospitalOttawa HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingProtocol (science)MedicineNursingPediatricsObstetricsFamily medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to synthesize the qualitative evidence on factors that influence direct breastfeeding of preterm infants in neonatal wards and the provision of breastfeeding support. INTRODUCTION: Breastmilk is critical for the health of preterm neonates, and infants who directly feed at the breast are more likely to receive breastmilk exclusively for longer periods. Direct breastfeeding is associated with improved maternal coping and development of maternal identity. Preterm infants are significantly less likely to breastfeed than their term counterparts. An understanding of barriers and facilitators of direct breastfeeding and breastfeeding support in neonatal wards is lacking. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The proposed qualitative systematic review will include studies using qualitative methods and mixed methods, exploring the perceptions of breastfeeding parents, neonatal health care staff, and/or support people about the barriers and facilitators to direct breastfeeding (ie, suckling breastmilk directly from the parent's breast) among preterm infants (infants born at less than 37 weeks' gestation) admitted to a neonatal ward. Articles written in English or French will be considered. METHODS: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus, and the Cochrane Library will be searched, with no time restrictions applied. Two independent reviewers will screen and extract data using a tool developed for this purpose. The findings will be coded and pooled using the meta-aggregation approach. The findings will be mapped to specific domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework using an iteratively developed coding manual. Studies will be appraised using the JBI critical appraisal tool for qualitative research, and confidence in the overall findings will be assessed using the ConQual approach. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024557250.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.110
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1100.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.008
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207