Human resources and the quality of emergency obstetric care in developing countries: a systematic review of the literature
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
BACKGROUND: This paper reports on a systematic literature review exploring the importance of human resources in the quality of emergency obstetric care and thus in the reduction of maternal deaths. METHODS: A systematic search of two electronic databases (ISI Web of Science and MEDLINE) was conducted, based on the following key words "quality obstetric* care" OR "pregnancy complications OR emergency obstetric* care OR maternal mortality" AND "quality health care OR quality care" AND "developing countries. Relevant papers were analysed according to three customary components of emergency obstetric care: structure, process and results. RESULTS: This review leads to three main conclusions: (1) staff shortages are a major obstacle to providing good quality EmOC; (2) women are often dissatisfied with the care they receive during childbirth; and (3) the technical quality of EmOC has not been adequately studied. The first two conclusions provide lessons to consider when formulating EmOC policies, while the third point is an area where more knowledge is needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it