An exploration of perceptions regarding the feasibility of implementation of kangaroo mother care in the maternity ward of Tsumeb district hospital, Namibia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim : To explore perceptions regarding the implementation of KMC in the maternity ward of Tsumeb District Hospital. Methods : This was a qualitative exploratory study. The study population are doctors and nurses working in Tsumeb District, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), and health programme administrators in the family health division of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MOHSS), Oshikoto Region. Purposive sampling was used to select participants. Results : KMC is currently not practised at Tsumeb District Hospital despite many infants born with low weight in the district. Perceptions were grouped into three main themes: parent-related, health worker-related and baby-related. Parent-related perceptions include self-trust, increased competency, less frustration, and active involvement of parents in baby care, which are similar to the literature and regarded as benefits of KMC. But some health workers have negative perceptions of KMC. Health worker-related perceptions included both reduced workload and an increased workload. Baby-related perceptions are reduced morbidity, increased bonding, and improved care. Most of the health workers’ perceptions are similar to the benefits of KMC found in the literature. Conclusions : The results show that there are many barriers to KMC implementation. The main ones are lack of guidelines on care of the low birth weight infants and KMC policy guidelines.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".