Acceptability and feasibility of heat-treated expressed breastmilk following exclusive breastfeeding by HIV-1 infected South African women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative and quantitative research methods were employed to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of HIV-1 infected, urban South African mothers being able to feed their infants heat-treated expressed breast milk (HTEBM). Nutritional status assessment of HIV-infected breastfeeding mothers (n=84) indicated that maternal status was not compromised; mean body mass index 26.8 (4.0) kg/m2, triceps skinfold 14.8 (5.50) mm and hemoglobin 11.6 (1.49) g/dL. However, severely immunocompromised mothers (CD4 + < 200 cells/mm3) were more likely to be anemic. Breastmilk viral loads were also higher in mothers with lower CD4+ cell counts. Community based inquiry on the acceptability of HTEBM was accomplished through in-depth interviews of participants (n=31), at the individual (mothers), family (partners, grandparents, mothers-in-law) and at the community level (traditional healers, daycare worker, health care counselors). Although an unfamiliar concept for all interviewed, overall, HTEBM was found to be an acceptable feeding choice regardless of respondents' gender, age, maternal status, family or community role. Further, data indicated mothers rarely received quality infant feeding counseling, consequently mixed feeding, a high risk for HIV transmission, was a common practice. In a pilot longitudinal study, using mixed-methods, the feasibility of mothers successfully implementing a modified breastfeeding intervention (6 months exclusive breastfeeding (EBF), cessation of breastfeeding, followed by use of HTEBM with complementary diet) was evaluated. The majority of mothers (36/66) practiced EBF for 6 months, 42% of whom also used HTEBM, expressing a range of approximately, 65 ml to 600 ml of breastmilk daily, for varying durations (2 weeks to 5 months). Mothers did not experience breast pathology. Home visits were highly enabling as was disclosure of HIV status to a partner. This is the first study to demonstrate that use of HTEBM is a feasible infant feeding option for HIV infected women. HTEBM may offer one solution to reduce vertical transmission of HIV and help maintain nutritional adequacy, as a component of complementary feeding.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".