Father's influence on breastfeeding continuity or interruption: meta-synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize qualitative evidence on the father's influence on the mother's decision to maintain or interrupt breastfeeding. METHOD: Qualitative metasynthesis, with systematic searches in the LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL databases, supplemented by manual searches. ENTREQ (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research) recommendations and the checklist CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) were followed to assess the studies quality. In the data synthesis process, a thematic synthesis approach was used. RESULTS: Of a total of 1,158 references identified, 13 were included. The thematic synthesis allowed the construction of two analytical themes, which qualify paternal influence: 'Difficulty in actively participating in the breastfeeding process', with four descriptive themes, and 'Acting directly or indirectly with the mother during breastfeeding', with three descriptive themes. CONCLUSION: Most studies revealed the decision-making process to be centered on the mother. Health education aimed at fathers during prenatal care contributes to participatory fatherhood and encourages breastfeeding.
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 | 0.048 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".