Female Health and Family Planning in Sierra Leone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the current status of access to maternal care, family planning use, and place of delivery in Sierra Leone, one of the poorest countries in the world with one of the highest maternal mortality rates. METHODS: Data from the Surgeons OverSeas Assessment of Surgical Need, a cross-sectional two-stage cluster-based household survey conducted in Sierra Leone in 2012, were analyzed to determine access to maternal care, family planning use, and location of delivery. RESULTS: Of 3,318 females of reproductive age (12-50 years of age), 1,205 participants were interviewed in depth. Twenty percent (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.9-22.5) of respondents reported using family planning methods; injectables were the most frequently used method. Fifty-nine percent (95% CI 54.0-63.0) of the recalled deliveries took place outside of a health facility. Of the total births, 1.9% (95% CI 1.3-2.5) were reportedly delivered by cesarean and 0.4% (9/2,316) with instrumental delivery. There were 53 reported maternal deaths in the 12 months before the survey, resulting in a maternal mortality rate of 1,600 per 100,000 females per year. Of the maternal deaths, 30 females (56.6%) did not receive any type of modern health care with 53% (16/30) of families citing financial constraints. CONCLUSION: This study reaffirms a low family planning uptake and very low instrument deliveries and cesarean delivery rates in Sierra Leone. Additionally, financial barriers hinder access to health care and indicate that the free health care initiative for pregnant females is not yet fully covering the reproductive needs of the females of Sierra Leone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".