MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016378358 · doi:10.1108/09526860310499990

User feedback from family‐planning clients in Uganda

2003· article· en· W2016378358 on OpenAlexaff
Walter Kipp, Annette Flaherty

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily planningEconomic shortagePerceptionFamily medicineMedicineCustomer satisfactionNursingPsychologyBusinessMarketingPopulationResearch methodologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were to determine knowledge, satisfaction and perceptions of clients of a community‐based family‐planning program in Uganda. In an interview survey, male and female clients (48 female clients and one male client) were interviewed. Main outcome measures were the client knowledge score, the client satisfaction score, and the clients’ general perception of family‐planning services. Client knowledge and client satisfaction scores were high (85/100 vs 78/100). Obstacles to program improvement as perceived by clients were resistance to family planning by male sexual partners and religious leaders as well as shortages in the supply of contraceptives. In conclusion, it can be said that female clients in Kabarole were satisfied with the services they received from both male and female community‐based distributors (CBDs). Satisfaction with and acceptance of male CBDs by female clients are important for the increased recruitment of male CBDs in family planning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health Care Quality AssuranceSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207