PERSPECTIVES REGARDING ANTENATAL CARE, DELIVERY AND BREAST FEEDING PRACTICES OF WOMEN FROM BALUCHISTAN, PAKISTAN.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antenatal Care is one of the fundamental rights for women to safeguard their health. Neonatal mortality rates have remained relatively static, compared to the decline in infant and under 5 mortality rates, adverse practices regarding breast feeding and pre-lacteal feeds being the important factors responsible. This study aimed to explore the Antenatal Care, delivery and breastfeeding practices in three districts of Baluchistan. METHODS: It was a qualitative phenomenological design using Constructivist approach. The study was conducted in three districts of Baluchistan province, Gwadar, Quetta, Qila Saifullah. There were a total of 14 Focus Group Discussions with women regarding Antenatal Care, delivery and Breastfeeding practices, followed by audio taping, transcription as verbatim and analysis through Nvivo version 2. A process was deployed for identification and reporting of the components in order to ensure quality and validity of the qualitative findings. RESULTS: Across the sites, women attended ANC at least once. However, their descriptions of ANC often varied. The women preferred Dais instead of doctors, due to the affordability, customs and availability. A lack of trained doctors and long distances to get a check-up lead to home deliveries in the study setting. Colostrum was discarded by majority of the mothers, while prelacteal feed was a common practice. CONCLUSION: This paper has explored factors affecting ANC attendance, delivery and breast feeding practices across three settings. Both the demand and supply side factors have an important influence on practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".