The knowledge and attitudes of traditional birth attendants towards HIV/AIDS and their beliefs related to perinatal care: a study conducted in KwaZulu Natal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional birth attendants (TBAs) are still mainly being utilized in the rural areas even in the presence of the formal health care facilities. Studies reveal that the utilization of TBAs is beneficial in some other contexts with some support and supervision from the western health sector. In order to develop further training for TBAs the researchers deemed it necessary to assess their knowledge, attitudes and beliefs related to HIV/AIDS, prenatal care, delivery and postnatal care. This was a survey of an identified group of TBAs who had already received some training and were currently practicing in the catchment areas. Five Primary health care (PHC) clinics from Abaqulusi sub-district in Zululand Health District, Kwa-Zulu Natal Province, were selected as sites for the focus groups. A total of 57 TBAs participated in focus groups and completed a questionnaire. The HIV/AIDS knowledge questionnaire consisted of 16 questions about transmission, symptoms, course of the disease and its risk factors. An assessment tool was used to assess attitudes, beliefs and practice in relation to pregnancy, delivery and postnatal care. The results of this study demonstrated that the TBAs have a good knowledge of what they are doing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".