MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600904534 · doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2124-4

A process evaluation plan for assessing a complex community-based maternal health intervention in Ogun State, Nigeria

2017· article· en· W2600904534 on OpenAlexafffund
Sumedha Sharma, Olalekan O. Adetoro, Marianne Vidler, Sharla Drebit, Beth A. Payne, David Akeju, Akinmade Adepoju, Ebunoluwa Jaiyesimi, John Sotunsa, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Laura A. Magee, Peter von Dadelszen, Olukayode A. Dada

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of British ColumbiaChild and Family Research Institute
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineContext (archaeology)Health facilityImplementation researchPublic healthIntervention (counseling)Focus groupCommunity healthHealth informaticsHealth careOgun stateCommunity engagementUnintended consequencesHealth services researchNursingEnvironmental healthLocal governmentPublic relationsPopulationEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite increased investment in community-level maternal health interventions, process evaluations of such interventions are uncommon, and can be instrumental in understanding mediating factors leading to outcomes. In Nigeria, where an unacceptably number of maternal deaths occur (maternal mortality ratio of 814/100,000 livebirths), the Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) study (NCT01911494) aimed to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity with a complex intervention of five interrelated components. Building from previous frameworks, we illustrate a methodology to evaluate implementation processes of the complex CLIP intervention, assess mechanisms of impact and identify emerging unintended causal pathways. METHODS: The study was conducted from 2013-2016 in five Local Government Areas in Ogun State, Nigeria. A six-step approach was developed to evaluate key constructs of context (external factors related to intervention), implementation (fidelity, dose, reach, and adaption) and mechanisms of impact (unintended outcomes and mediating pathways). The steps are: 1) describing the intervention by a logic model, 2) defining acceptable delivery, 3) formulating questions, 4) determining methodology, 5) planning resources in context, lastly, step 6) finalising the plan in consideration with relevant stakeholders. RESULTS: Quantitative data were collected from 32,785 antenatal and postnatal visits at the primary health care level, from 66 community engagement sessions, training assessments of community health workers, and standard health facility questionnaires. Forty-three focus group discussions, 38 in-depth interviews, and 23 structured observations were conducted to capture qualitative data. A total of 103 community engagement reports and 182 suspected pre-eclampsia case reports were purposively collected. Timing of data collection was staggered to understand feedback mechanisms that may have resulted from the delivery of the intervention. Data will be analysed using R and NVivo. Diffusions of innovations and realist evaluation theories will underpin analysis of the interaction between context, mechanisms and outcomes. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive approach can serve as a guide for researchers and policy makers to plan the evaluation of similar complex health interventions in resource-constrained settings, and to aid in measuring 'effectiveness' of interventions and not just 'efficacy'. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This research is a part of the Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia Study, NCT01911494. The trial is registered in Clinicaltrials.gov, the URL is https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01911494 The trial was registered on June 28, 2013 and the first participant was enrolled for intervention on March 1, 2014.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.157
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1570.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.274
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207