The costs of a community-based intervention to promote maternal health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The costs of community-level interventions are rarely reported, although such insights are needed if intervention research is to be useful to practitioners seeking to understand what might be involved in replicating interventions in different contexts. We report the costs of a 2-year community-based intervention to promote the health of recent mothers in Victoria, Australia. Program of Resources, Information and Support for Mothers was an integrated programme of primary care and community-based strategies. It had health care professional training, health education and community development components as well as an emphasis on creating 'mother-friendly' environments. Costs included the programme costs [primarily the salaries of the community development officers (CDO) in the field] and also 'induced' costs that relate to the CDOs' successes in attracting additional resources to the intervention from the local community. The total cost averaged A$272,490 per rural community and A$313,900 per urban community, equivalent to A$172.40 and A$128.70 per mother, respectively. For every A$10 of public funds initially invested in the project, the CDOs were able to attract a further A$1-2 worth of local resources, predominantly in the form of volunteer time or donated services.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".