An investigation into the level of empowerment of rural women in the Zululand district of KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcome of the empowerment of rural women in relation to gender issues, power, and communication within the Zululand District of KwaZulu-Natal in SouthAfrica after implementation of a four-year Primary Health Care project in partnership with the Provincial Department of Health, and two Schools of Nursing at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and McMaster University in Canada. This project is based on substantial evidence which reveals that rural women are being neglected to the extent that these women have missed out on opportunities for development. The reasons for this disempowerment of women, particularly rural women, are thought to be due to the feminisation of poverty, as well as female submission, educational deprivation, privacy of domestic violence, exploitation, domination by men and cultural oppression (patriarchy). A qualitative research approach was used. Focus group discussion was utilised as the data collection technique, and this was also applied during the collection of baseline data. An interview guide covered issues of concern in the communities and households, including what the women would, or had done about these, how they engaged in decision-making in their families, how they handled situations when there was a difference of opinion, and their awareness of, and ability to claim their rights, including control of their lives. The data was collected from six clinics, from groups of six to ten women in the predominantly rural Zululand District of KwaZulu-Natal. The project has revealed improvement in the women's realisation of their rights, albeit limited, in communication, self-confidence, and reliance, including partnerships between Primary Health Care Nurses and women's groups. The formation of women's groups facilitated community development and participation in their own health, socio-economic and emotional development. The project suggests that such groups be encouraged and allowed to network for support as they understand their own problems better, they merely require facilitation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".