MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413139596 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0005059

Breastfeeding and workplace support in Nepal

2025· article· en· W4413139596 on OpenAlexaff
Mallika Shrestha, Saroj Adhikari, Gayatri Budha Magar, Babu Ram Pokhrel

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsFanshawe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingNursingMedicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Working mothers encounter numerous challenges in exclusively breastfeeding their children despite overwhelming evidence of its benefits. This study examines exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) practices among employed mothers in Nepal, focusing on workplace support factors including maternity leave duration, flexible work schedules, task adjustments, breastfeeding policies, availability of lactation rooms, and dissemination of organizational support information. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Nepal among employed mothers with children under two years old. A self-administered online questionnaire was used to gather data from 201 mothers, and the results were analyzed using SPSS 16. EBF prevalence among employed mothers was 37.8%, with 76.4% identifying their return to work as the primary reason for discontinuing EBF. Only 18.9% of workplaces had designated rooms for breastfeeding, but such spaces increased the likelihood of EBF by 11.6 times (COR: 11.6; 95% CI: 4.7 - 28.2). Furthermore, task adjustment increased EBF by four times (COR: 4.2; 95% CI: 2.2 - 7.8). Maternity leave, combined with breastfeeding-friendly workplaces, significantly promotes EBF practices among working mothers in Nepal.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Global Public HealthSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207