MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114894585 · doi:10.1186/s12914-015-0050-2

Neonatal care practice and factors affecting in Southwest Ethiopia: a mixed methods study

2015· article· en· W2114894585 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gurmesa Tura, Mesganaw Fantahun, Alemayehu Worku

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC International Health and Human Rights · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAfrican Population and Health Research CenterAddis Ababa UniversityInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsMedicineResidenceThematic analysisFamily medicineChildbirthPregnancyNeonatal tetanusQualitative propertyPublic healthQualitative researchFocus groupBathingTetanusEnvironmental healthNursingPediatricsDemographyPopulationVaccination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of neonatal mortality can be prevented by the provision of the minimum neonatal care package. However, about 3 million neonates die each year globally because of lack of appropriate care. This situation is the worst in Ethiopia. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the status of neonatal care and identify factors affecting. METHODS: A mixed methods study involving both quantitative and qualitative methods was conducted from September 2012-December 2013 in Southwest Ethiopia. Randomly selected sample of 3463 mothers were interviewed to collect the quantitative data. Twelve in-depth interviews with purposively selected key informants and six focus-group discussions with purposively selected mothers were conducted for the qualitative data. Mixed-effects multilevel linear regression model was used to identify predictors of neonatal care practice by using STATA 13. Audio recording, transcription and thematic content analysis was done for the qualitative data. RESULTS: The overall status of neonatal care practice was 59.5 % (95 % CI: 57.6 %, 61.3 %). Of the respondents, 53.8 % received tetanus toxoid, 23.8 % planed for birth, 41.9 % received at least one antenatal care and 43.0 % received adequate information during pregnancy. Only, 17.5 % received skilled care at birth and 95.0 % received social support. Of the neonates, 96.5 % received appropriate thermal care, 86.5 % received clean cord care, 64.1 % initiated breast-feeding within one hour, 91.5 % were on exclusive breast-feeding, 56.5 % received appropriate bathing and 8.1 % received vaccination on date of birth. Place of residence, maternal education, husband's occupation, wealth quintiles, birth order and inter-birth interval were identified as predictors of neonatal care practice. CONCLUSIONS: The status of neonatal care practice was low in the study area. Skilled care at birth and receiving vaccination on date of birth were the worst practices. Factors affecting neonatal care existed both at cluster level and at the individual level and included socio demographic, economic and obstetric factors. Appropriate birth spacing, birth limiting and behaviour change communications on the importance of neonatal care are recommended.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.383 · 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.

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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC International Health and Human RightsSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207