Intimate partner violence and breastfeeding: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The association between intimate partner\n\t\t\t\t violence (IPV) and breastfeeding is unclear. We conducted\n\t\t\t\t a systematic review to summarise the evidence of\n\t\t\t\t breastfeeding outcomes following exposure to IPV.\n\t\t\t\t Design Systematic review.\n\t\t\t\t Methods We searched for published studies without\n\t\t\t\t study design or language restrictions (up to July 2019)\n\t\t\t\t in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS\n\t\t\t\t and The Global Health Library. Studies assessing various\n\t\t\t\t breastfeeding outcomes (initiation, duration and exclusive\n\t\t\t\t breastfeeding) in women exposed to IPV in any form\n\t\t\t\t (physical, psychological or sexual) and at any stage (1 year\n\t\t\t\t pre-pregnancy,\n\t\t\t\t during or post-pregnancy)\n\t\t\t\t were included.\n\t\t\t\t Two authors independently selected the studies and\n\t\t\t\t conducted the quality appraisal by use of the Newcastle–\n\t\t\t\t Ottawa Scale. Results were summarised taking precision\n\t\t\t\t and quality into account.\n\t\t\t\t Results A total of 16 studies (participants n=414 393)\n\t\t\t\t were included and they adjusted for a total of 48 different\n\t\t\t\t confounders. The majority of studies were cross-sectional\n\t\t\t\t (n=11) and most studies were judged to be\n\t\t\t\t fair/low quality. Four out of seven studies found that IPV\n\t\t\t\t exposure shortened breastfeeding duration (adjusted\n\t\t\t\t ORs/aORs=0.22 (95% CI: 0.05–0.85), 1.18 (95% CI:\n\t\t\t\t 1.01–1.37), 5.92 (95% CI: 1.72–27.98), 1.28 (95% CI:\n\t\t\t\t 1.18–1.39)). Further, 5/10 studies found that IPV led to\n\t\t\t\t early termination of exclusive breastfeeding (aORs=1.53\n\t\t\t\t (95% CI: 1.01–23.1), 0.83 (95% CI: 0.71–0.96), 1.35 (95%\n\t\t\t\t CI: 1.07–1.71), 0.17 (95% CI: 0.07–0.4), 1839 (95% CI:\n\t\t\t\t 1.61–2911)) and 2/6 studies found that IPV significantly\n\t\t\t\t reduced breastfeeding initiation (aORs=2.00 (95% CI:\n\t\t\t\t 1.2–3.3), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.7–0.93)).\n\t\t\t\t Conclusion IPV exposure appears to associate negatively\n\t\t\t\t with some breastfeeding outcomes. Individual patient data\n\t\t\t\t meta-analysis\n\t\t\t\t is required to quantify the magnitude of the\n\t\t\t\t association for specific IPV-outcome\n\t\t\t\t combinations. More\n\t\t\t\t high-quality\n\t\t\t\t studies and definition of core confounders are\n\t\t\t\t warranted.\n\t\t\t\t PROSPERO registration number CRD42019129353
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 | 0.014 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".