MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109751273 · doi:10.1002/hpm.2139

Barriers to implementing WHO's exclusive breastfeeding policy for women living with HIV in sub‐Saharan Africa: an exploration of ideas, interests and institutions

2012· article· en· W2109751273 on OpenAlexaff
Gwendolen Eamer, Glen E. Randall

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Health Planning and Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingGuidelineResource (disambiguation)Transmission (telecommunications)Economic growthMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Breast feedingPolitical scienceVariety (cybernetics)Public relationsBusinessDevelopment economicsFamily medicinePediatricsEconomicsLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vertical transmission of HIV occurs when an HIV-positive woman passes the virus to her baby during pregnancy, delivery or breastfeeding. The World Health Organization's (WHO) Guidelines on HIV and infant feeding 2010 recommends exclusive breastfeeding for HIV-positive mothers in resource-limited settings. Although evidence shows that following this strategy will dramatically reduce vertical transmission of HIV, full implementation of the WHO Guidelines has been severely limited in sub-Saharan Africa. This paper provides an analysis of the role of ideas, interests and institutions in establishing barriers to the effective implementation of these guidelines by reviewing efforts to implement prevention of vertical transmission programs in various sub-Saharan countries. Findings suggest that WHO Guidelines on preventing vertical transmission of HIV through exclusive breastfeeding in resource-limited settings are not being translated into action by governments and front-line workers because of a variety of structural and ideological barriers. Identifying and understanding the role played by ideas, interests and institutions is essential to overcoming barriers to guideline implementation.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Health Planning and ManagementSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207