The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Maternal Absenteeism and Infant Illness Rates among Breast-Feeding and Formula-Feeding Women in Two Corporations
Abstract
Purpose.: A comparison was made between breast-feeding and formula-feeding among employed mothers. Absenteeism directly related to child care was examined. Design.: This quasi-experimental study followed convenience samples of breast-feeding and formula-feeding mothers until their infants were weaned or reached 1 year of age. Setting.: Two corporations with established lactation programs were used. One had approximately 100 births annually among 2400 female employees, and the other had approximately 30 births annually among 1200 female employees. Subjects.: A sample of 101 participants, 59 feeding breast milk and 42 using commercial formula, was composed of employees returning from maternity leave for a medically uncomplicated birth. Intervention.: The programs provided counseling by a lactation professional for all participants and facilities to collect and store breast milk. Measures.: Confidential participant diaries provided descriptive data on infant illnesses and related absenteeism that the lactation consultant verified with health care providers and through employer attendance records. Analysis.: Attribute counts of illnesses and absenteeism were reported as percentages. Single degree of freedom χ 2 tests were used to compare rates between nutrition groups. Results.: Approximately 28% of the infants in the study had no illnesses; 86% of these were breast-fed and 14% were formula-fed. When illnesses occurred, 25% of all 1-day maternal absences were among breast-fed babies and 75% were among the formula-fed group. Conclusions.: In this study fewer and less severe infant illnesses and less maternal absenteeism was found in the breast-feeding group. This was not an experimental study. Participants were self-selected, and a comparison group was used rather than a true control group. Corroboration of these findings from larger experimental studies is needed to generalize beyond these groups.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Breastfeeding and the use of human milk
BREASTFEEDING, S. O., Eidelman, A. I., Schanler, R. J., Johnston, M., Landers, S., Noble, L., Szucs, K., & Viehmann, L. (2012) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2011-3552 · Cited by 4,357
Treatment of opioid-dependent pregnant women: Clinical and research issues
Jones, H. E., Martin, P. R., Heil, S. H., Kaltenbach, K., Selby, P., Coyle, M. G., Stine, S. M., O'Grady, K. E., Arria, A. M., & Fischer, G. (2008) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2007.10.007 · Cited by 191
Low Breastfeeding Rates and Public Health in the United States
Wolf, J. H. (2003) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.93.12.2000 · Cited by 169
A Description of a Male-Focused Breastfeeding Promotion Corporate Lactation Program
Cohen, R., Lange, L., & Slusser, W. (2002) · Journal of Human Lactation · doi:10.1177/089033440201800111 · Cited by 69
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cohen, R., Mrtek, M. B., & Mrtek, R. G.
- Venue
- American Journal of Health Promotion
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1995-11
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 148-153
- ISSN
- 0890-1171 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-6602
- OpenAlex
- W2181638379
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.99
- 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: Comparison of Maternal Absenteeism and Infant Illness Rates among Breast-Feeding and Formula-Feeding Women in Two Corporations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4278/0890-1171-10.2.148
- The paper
- Cohen, R., Mrtek, M. B., & Mrtek, R. G. (1995). Comparison of Maternal Absenteeism and Infant Illness Rates among Breast-Feeding and Formula-Feeding Women in Two Corporations. American Journal of Health Promotion. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-10.2.148
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.
