Community Health Workers and Health Care Delivery: Evaluation of a Women's Reproductive Health Care Project in a Developing Country
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As part of the mid-term evaluation of a Women's Health Care Project, a study was conducted to compare the utilization of maternal and neonatal health (MNH) services in two areas with different levels of service in Punjab, Pakistan. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted to interview Married Women of Reproductive Age (MWRA). Information was collected on MWRA knowledge regarding danger signs during pregnancy, delivery, postnatal periods, and MNH care seeking behavior. After comparing MNH service utilization, the two areas were compared using a logistic regression model, to identify the association of different factors with the intervention after controlling for socio-demographic, economic factors and distance of the MWRA residence to a health care facility. RESULTS: The demographic characteristics of women in the two areas were similar, although socioeconomic status as indicated by level of education and better household amenities, was higher in the intervention area. Consequently, on univariate analysis, utilization of MNH services: antenatal care, TT vaccination, institutional delivery and use of modern contraceptives were higher in the intervention than control area. Nonetheless, multivariable analysis controlling for confounders such as socioeconomic status revealed that utilization of antenatal care services at health centers and TT vaccination during pregnancy are significantly associated with the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest positive changes in health care seeking behavior of women and families with respect to MNH. Some aspects of care still require attention, such as knowledge about danger signs and neonatal care, especially umbilical cord care. Despite overall success achieved so far in response to the Millennium Development Goals, over the past two decades decreases in maternal mortality are far from the 2015 target. This report identifies some of the key factors to improving MNH and serves as an interim measure of a national and global challenge that remains a work in progress.
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 | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".