Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 419

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Infant Feeding Practices Study II: Study Methods

Fein, Sara B., Labiner-Wolfe, Judith, Shealy, Katherine R., Li, Rouwei, Chen, Jian, Grummer-Strawn, Laurence M.·2008·Pediatrics

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. Our goal is to describe the methods used in the Infant Feeding Practices Study II (IFPS II), a study of infant feeding and care practices throughout the first year of life. Survey topics included breastfeeding, formula and complementary feeding, infant health, breast-pump use, food allergies, sleeping arrangements, mother's employment, and child care arrangements. In addition, mothers’ dietary intake was measured prenatally and postnatally. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS. The IFPS II sample was drawn from a nationally distributed consumer opinion panel of 500000 households. All questionnaires were administered by mail, 1 prenatally and 10 postpartum. Qualifying criteria were used to achieve the sample goals of mothers of healthy term and late preterm singleton infants. In addition to the questionnaires about the infants, women were sent a diet-assessment questionnaire prenatally and at ∼4 months after delivery; this questionnaire was also sent to members of a comparison group who were neither pregnant nor postpartum. RESULTS. A sample of 4902 pregnant women began the study, and ∼2000 continued through their infant's first year. Response rates ranged from 63% to 87% for the different questionnaires. Compared with adult mothers of singletons from the nationally representative sample of the National Survey of Family Growth, IFPS II participants had a higher mean education level; were older; were more likely to be middle income, white, and employed; were less likely to smoke; and had fewer other children. Compared with women who participated in the National Immunization Survey who gave birth in 2004, IFPS II mothers were more likely to breastfeed and to breastfeed longer. CONCLUSIONS. The IFPS II provides a valuable database because of its large sample size, the frequency of its questionnaires, and its wide coverage of issues salient to infant feeding.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2008-1315c

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 419

Metadata

Authors
Fein, S. B., Labiner-Wolfe, J., Shealy, K. R., Li, R., Chen, J., & Grummer-Strawn, L. M.
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2008-10-01
Volume
122
Issue
Supplement_2
Pages
S28-S35
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2104232563
Cited by
419
References
0
FWCI
7.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Infant Feeding Practices Study II: Study Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.2008-1315c
The paper
Fein, S. B., Labiner-Wolfe, J., Shealy, K. R., Li, R., Chen, J., & Grummer-Strawn, L. M. (2008). Infant Feeding Practices Study II: Study Methods. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-1315c

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.