Infant Feeding Challenges in the First Six Months: Influencing Factors, Consequences, and Strategies for Maternal Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The first six months of an infant’s life are crucial for the child’s physical and psychological development. During this period, maternal feeding practices significantly impact infant nutrition and growth. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with feeding difficulties in infants younger than six months. Methods: The study was conducted using a CAWI method. The study group consisted of 555 mothers who completed an online questionnaire about demographics, feeding methods, and feeding difficulties experienced, measured using the Montreal Children’s Hospital Feeding Scale (MCH-FS). Infant feeding methods were clearly distinguished as direct breastfeeding, breast milk feeding (expressed milk), and formula feeding. Statistical analyses included effect sizes (Cohen’s d) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: In the study group, 65% of mothers reported feeding difficulties. Significant predictors of feeding difficulties included maternal overweight and obesity (p = 0.041; Cohen’s d = 0.37, 95% CI [0.15, 0.59]), lower maternal education (p = 0.014; Cohen’s d = 0.45, 95% CI [0.22, 0.68]), lack of adequate partner support (38%), and the use of mixed feeding methods (mean difference = 4.4 points, p = 0.027; Cohen’s d = 0.46, 95% CI [0.23, 0.69]). Conclusions: Feeding difficulties during infancy are common and influenced by maternal health and sociodemographic factors. These findings emphasize the importance of targeted educational resources and lactation support interventions tailored specifically to mothers at increased risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".