Midwives’ Professional Satisfaction and the Quality of Obstetric Care in Developing Country
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In Africa, poor working conditions affect the motivation of health care providers. The objective is to study midwives’ professional satisfaction on the technical quality of emergency obstetric care in Senegal. Material and Methods: This was a prospective study of 16 hospitals in Senegal. The job satisfaction of midwives was measured during a personal interview. The instrument used was validated in Senegal and Mali. Other data collected relate to professional and institutional characteristics. A treatment observation grid was used to measure the quality of obstetric care in labour wards. Mixed-model linear regression was used to estimate the effect of satisfaction on the quality of obstetric care. Results: A total of 65 midwives were interviewed and 325 patients observed. The average quality score was 8.7 ± 1.7. The satisfaction scores ranged from 42.2 ± 17.4 (salary) to 76.7 ± 12.1 (morale satisfaction). A positive and significant correlation was found between quality of care and management (cc = 0.56), remuneration (cc = 0.40), task (cc = 0.32), workload (cc = 0.24) and training (cc = 0.29). The linear mixed model shows that salary (β = 0.40), continuing education (β = 0.17) and management style (β = 0.42) improved the quality of care. Association between moral satisfaction and quality care was negative (β = ﹣0.53). Conclusion: The satisfaction of health professionals is a major determinant of the quality of obstetric care. Its inclusion in the fight against mortality has become imperative in developing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".