The applicability of women‐centered care: Two case studies of capacity‐building for maternal health through international collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim: To explore the general applicability of women‐centered care (WCC) as a philosophical foundation used for capacity‐building (CB) through examining the results of international collaboration efforts in Bolivia and the Union of Myanmar. Methods: PubMed was used to search for articles related to WCC. The literature was sorted into the categories of “antecedents”, “characteristics”, and “outcomes”. The descriptors of WCC were extracted and applied to midwifery projects in Bolivia and the Union of Myanmar. Pre‐assessments and postassessments captured recipients’ and health workers’“voices”. Case studies were used to illustrate the outcomes. Results: Extracted from the literature were two antecedents that typified pre‐WCC: gender inequality and hierarchical, male‐centered medical treatment. The characteristics of WCC were respect, safety, holism, and partnership. The consequences of WCC were the empowerment of women, autonomy for the care provider, and societal reform. Using these WCC characteristics as the philosophical foundation of our approach, our Bolivian and Union of Myanmar projects were implemented to improve maternal health through CB mother and baby‐friendly care at the primary level of normal birth care. The two projects illustrated the WCC characteristics of respect, safety, and partnership, as well as the resulting empowerment of women and autonomy for the nursing profession. Conclusion: Women‐centered care, as a universal philosophical foundation, transcends cultures and CB leads to reform for women, both as the providers and users of care. The field results indicated that WCC can be successfully applied to real‐life situations.
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 | 0.045 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".