The role of civil society in strengthening intercultural maternal health care in local health facilities: Puno, Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectivePeru's Ministry of Health has made efforts to increase the cultural inclusiveness of maternal health services. In 2005, the Ministry adopted an intercultural birthing policy (IBP) that authorizes and encourages the use of culturally acceptable birthing practices in government-run health facilities. However, studies suggest that indigenous women may receive inconsistent benefits from these kinds of policies. This article examines whether a grassroots accountability initiative based on citizen monitoring of local health facilities by indigenous women can help to promote the objectives of the IBP and improve intercultural maternal health care.DesignFindings are drawn from a larger qualitative research study completed in 2015 that included fieldwork done between 2010 and 2011. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 women working as citizen monitors in local health facilities in Puno and 30 key informants, including frontline health workers, health officials, and civil society actors in Puno and Lima, and human rights lawyers from the Defensoría del Pueblo Office in Puno.ResultsMonitors confirmed from their own personal experiences in the 1990s and early 2000s that respect for intercultural aspects of maternal health care, including traditional indigenous birthing practices, were not readily accepted in publicly funded health facilities. It was also common for indigenous women to face discrimination when seeking health service provided by the state. Although the government's adoption of the IBP in 2005 was a positive step, considerable efforts are still needed to ensure high-quality, culturally appropriate maternal health care is consistently available in local health facilities.ConclusionsDespite important progress in the past two decades, policies aimed at improving intercultural maternal health care are unevenly implemented in local health facilities. Civil society, in particular indigenous women themselves, can play an important role in holding the state accountable for quality care.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".