Midwifery Infant Feeding Information Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The initiation and duration of exclusive chest/breastfeeding are important health determinants and a key focus of existing public health policy and programs. Despite the demonstrated benefits of chest/breastfeeding and focus on interventions, overall rates of initiation and exclusivity in Ontario remain low. The purpose of this study was to describe how midwifery clients in Ontario - a population credited with high rates of exclusive chest/breastfeeding - access information to support infant feeding decisions. A descriptive, cross-sectional online electronic survey was conducted using the Midwifery Infant Feeding Information Survey questionnaire which was locally developed for this study. A total of 235 midwifery clients who were either in or recently discharged from midwifery care at the time of the survey completed the questionnaire. Data analysis was completed using descriptive statistics with total counts and content analysis for open-ended questions. This research contributes new knowledge about infant feeding information access including the reported usefulness and preferences of various information sources across the continuum of care; the importance of the midwife-client relationship and the online information environment; potential communication gaps in the delivery of comprehensive prenatal infant feeding information; and self-reported infant feeding patterns suggesting midwifery exclusive chest/breastfeeding rates may not be as high as previously thought. Further research to improve information access is needed in order to identify barriers midwives face in discussing infant feeding with clients; explore the effect of health literacy in an online information environment to support the potential development of evidence-based, midwifery-specific online/digital tools. The study findings are relevant for both the academic and clinical midwifery community in developing effective strategies to further support midwifery clients in meeting their infant feeding goals. This study will further inform researchers, public health practitioners, policy makers, and other stakeholders representing all childbearing families in Ontario.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".