Measuring implementation progress in kangaroo mother care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the development and testing of a monitoring model with quantitative indicators or progress markers that could measure the progress of individual hospitals in the implementation of kangaroo mother care (KMC). METHODS: Three qualitative data sets in the larger research programme on the implementation of KMC of the MRC Research Unit for Maternal and Infant Health Care Strategies in South Africa were used to develop a progress-monitoring model and an accompanying instrument. RESULTS: The model was conceptualized around three phases (pre-implementation, implementation and institutionalization) and six constructs depicting progress (awareness, adopting the concept, mobilization of resources, evidence of practice, evidence of routine and integration, sustainable practice). For each construct, indicators were developed for which data could be collected by means of the monitoring instrument used in a walk-through visit to a hospital. The instrument has been tested in 65 hospitals. CONCLUSION: The progress-monitoring model enables the quantification of individual hospitals' progress in the process of implementing KMC and an objective measurement of the effectiveness of different outreach strategies. The model also has potential to be adapted for measuring progress in other innovative healthcare interventions on a large scale.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it