How is maternal employment associated with infant and young child feeding in Bangladesh? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the last three decades, the increasing trend in female employment in Bangladesh has been critically analyzed from a socioeconomic point of view; however, its impact on infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices has yet to be systematically reviewed. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the association between these variables. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar to retrieve relevant records with no restriction of publication period. The Covidence tool was used for screening and data extraction. Meta-analysis was carried out using random effect models. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for the quality assessment of the included articles. RESULTS: A total of 24 articles were included. Of these, 16 focused on breastfeeding-related indicators, 6 focused on complementary feeding-related indicators, and 2 focused on both. Maternal employment was found to have both positive (protective) and negative (detrimental) associations with exclusive breastfeeding, whereas it was mainly positively associated with complementary feeding practices. Meta-analysis showed the pooled odds ratio of recommended early initiation of breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding, and complementary feeding among employed mothers were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.49, 1.27; p = 0.33), 0.32 (95% CI:0.16, 0.67; p = 0.002), and 1.07 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.42; p = 0.63) compared to their counterparts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal employment appears not to be a protective factor for some important breastfeeding indicators in Bangladesh. For example, there was a statistically significant lower likelihood of exclusive breastfeeding practice among employed mothers as compared to those who were not employed. Therefore, these issues should be taken into consideration when formulating relevant policies and interventions, e.g., breastfeeding-friendly workplace.
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 | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".