MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112506665 · doi:10.1111/wvn.12048

Evidence‐Based Stillbirth Prevention Strategies: Combining Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms to Inform Health Planning and Decision‐Making

2014· review· en· W2112506665 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Lou King, Amna Aden, Stephany Tapa, Reem Jumah, Salma Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueWorldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical decision makingManagement scienceMedical decision makingComputer sciencePsychologyData scienceMedicineEngineeringIntensive care medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: A global health project undertaken in Qatar on the Arabian Peninsula immersed undergraduate nursing students in hands-on learning to address the question: What strategies are effective in preventing stillbirth? Worldwide stillbirth estimates of 2.6 million per year and the high rate in the Eastern Mediterranean Region of 27 per 1,000 total live births provided the stimulus for this inquiry. METHODS: We used a dual empirical and theoretical approach that combined the principles of evidence-based practice and population health planning. Students were assisted to translate pre-appraised literature based on the 6S hierarchical pyramid of evidence. The PRECEDE-PROCEED (P-P) model served as an organizing template to assemble data extracted from the appraisal of 21 systematic literature reviews ± meta-analyses, 2 synopses of synthesized reports, and 9 individual studies summarizing stillbirth prevention strategies in low, middle, and high income countries. Consistent with elements of the P-P model, stillbirth prevention strategies were classified as social, epidemiological, educational, ecological, administrative, or policy. RESULTS: Ten recommendations with clear evidence of effectiveness in preventing stillbirth in low, middle, or high income countries were identified. Several other promising interventions were identified with weak, uncertain, or inconclusive evidence. These require further rigorous testing. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Two complementary paradigms--evidence-based practice and an ecological population health program planning model--helped baccalaureate nursing students transfer research evidence into useable knowledge for practice. They learned the importance of comprehensive assessments and evidence-informed interventions. The multidimensional elements of the P-P model sensitized students to the complex interrelated factors influencing stillbirth and its prevention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.238
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.290
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2380.290
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0270.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0220.021
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.189
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorldviews on Evidence-Based NursingSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207