MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036576030 · doi:10.1080/13691058.2013.799232

Birthing choices among the Sabiny of Uganda

2013· article· en· W2036576030 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Betty Kwagala

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Health & Sexuality · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachPsychological interventionFocus groupQuarter (Canadian coin)AccommodationHealth careNursingHealth policyMedicinePsychologyPublic relationsEconomic growthPolitical scienceBusinessPublic healthGeographyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper examines maternal health-seeking behaviour among the Sabiny people of Eastern Uganda in relation to health policy ideals. It is based on a study of maternal health conducted between 2011 and 2012. Data were collected using in-depth interviews with mothers, focus group discussions with mothers and fathers and key informant interviews. The paper addresses what factors influence choice of place of delivery among the Sabiny. Findings reveal that the majority of Sabiny women opt for homebirths, with around one quarter delivering at health facilities. Some women would prefer to deliver at a health facility but do not manage to do so. Sabiny cultural beliefs and practices are a key factor influencing choice of place of birth. Comprehension of and accommodation to Sabiny concerns in available maternal health services is limited, highlighting the need to develop cultural competence among health workers and methods of accommodating (health-promoting) local practices. This should be accompanied by improved patient care and a narrowing of the gap between health workers and Sabiny communities by promoting outreach and community-based health interventions. The paper highlights how the implementation of policy might be tailored to specific local contexts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture Health & SexualitySame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207