MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2736264999 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30246-2

Progress and priorities for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health in Kenya: a Countdown to 2015 country case study

2017· article· en· W2736264999 sur OpenAlex
Emily C Keats, Anthony Ngugi, William Macharia, Nadia Akseer, Emma Nelima Khaemba, Zaid Bhatti, Arjumand Rizvi, John Tole, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet Global Health · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Établissements canadiensCentre for Global Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoPublic Health OntarioHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesUNICEFBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Mots-clésChild mortalityPsychological interventionInfant mortalityMedicineCountdownMillennium Development GoalsDeveloping countryEnvironmental healthIntervention (counseling)Mortality rateDemographyReproductive healthGlobal healthPublic healthPopulationEconomic growth

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Progress in reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH) in Kenya has been inconsistent over the past two decades, despite the global push to foster accountability, reduce child mortality, and improve maternal health in an equitable manner. Although several cross-sectional assessments have been done, a systematic analysis of RMNCH in Kenya was needed to better understand the push and pull factors that govern intervention coverage and influence mortality trends. As such, we aimed to determine coverage and impact of key RMNCH interventions between 1990 and 2015. METHODS: We did a comprehensive, systematic assessment of RMNCH in Kenya from 1990 to 2015, using data from nationally representative Demographic Health Surveys done between 1989 and 2014. For comparison, we used modelled mortality estimates from the UN Inter-Agency Groups for Child and Maternal Mortality Estimation. We estimated time trends for key RMNCH indicators, as defined by Countdown to 2015, at both the national and the subnational level, and used linear regression methods to understand the determinants of change in intervention coverage during the past decade. Finally, we used the Lives Saved Tool (LiST) to model the effect of intervention scale-up by 2030. FINDINGS: After an increase in mortality between 1990 and 2003, there was a reversal in all mortality trends from 2003 onwards, although progress was not substantial enough for Kenya to achieve Millennium Development Goal targets 4 or 5. Between 1990 and 2015, maternal mortality declined at half the rate of under-5 mortality, and changes in neonatal mortality were even slower. National-level trends in intervention coverage have improved, although some geographical inequities remain, especially for counties comprising the northeastern, eastern, and northern Rift Valley regions. Disaggregation of intervention coverage by wealth quintile also revealed wide inequities for several health-systems-based interventions, such as skilled birth assistance. Multivariable analyses of predictors of change in family planning, skilled birth assistance, and full vaccination suggested that maternal literacy and family size are important drivers of positive change in key interventions across the continuum of care. LiST analyses clearly showed the importance of quality of care around birth for maternal and newborn survival. INTERPRETATION: Intensified and focused efforts are needed for Kenya to achieve the RMNCH targets for 2030. Kenya must build on its previous progress to further reduce mortality through the widespread implementation of key preventive and curative interventions, especially those pertaining to labour, delivery, and the first day of life. Deliberate targeting of the poor, least educated, and rural women, through the scale-up of community-level interventions, is needed to improve equity and accelerate progress. FUNDING: US Fund for UNICEF, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,161
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,972

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,404
Écart entre enseignants0,371 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle