2022
DOI: 10.1093/cdn/nzac061.059
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exploring Acceptance and Understanding of Inclusive Language in the Breastfeeding Attrition Prediction Tool

Abstract: Objectives Inclusive language has come to the forefront of the conversation in human lactation research as a way to increase the use of essential health services by marginalized groups. While there has been a call to action to adopt inclusive language in human lactation research, few studies have assessed understanding and acceptability of inclusive language. This pilot study, conducted in partnership with the Vermont Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WI… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Various platforms and institutions have grappled with these changes in different ways. For instance, The Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 9 adopted a policy of “intentional inconsistency” with regard to gender-neutral language, offering authors the autonomy to select the gender-related language they deemed most appropriate for their manuscripts, albeit expressing a preference for the terms “women” or “woman.” This approach is consistent with the findings of a small study conducted by Kinney et al, 20 which sought to assess the understanding and acceptance of gender-sensitive language revisions in the Breastfeeding Attrition Prediction Tool (BAPT). It uncovered that while a significant portion of the revised, inclusive terminologies were understood and accepted, some alternatives for breastfeeding, such as “chestfeeding” or “bodyfeeding,” posed comprehension difficulties and were met with resistance.…”
Section: Results and Analysissupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Various platforms and institutions have grappled with these changes in different ways. For instance, The Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 9 adopted a policy of “intentional inconsistency” with regard to gender-neutral language, offering authors the autonomy to select the gender-related language they deemed most appropriate for their manuscripts, albeit expressing a preference for the terms “women” or “woman.” This approach is consistent with the findings of a small study conducted by Kinney et al, 20 which sought to assess the understanding and acceptance of gender-sensitive language revisions in the Breastfeeding Attrition Prediction Tool (BAPT). It uncovered that while a significant portion of the revised, inclusive terminologies were understood and accepted, some alternatives for breastfeeding, such as “chestfeeding” or “bodyfeeding,” posed comprehension difficulties and were met with resistance.…”
Section: Results and Analysissupporting
confidence: 74%