Parents’ Knowledge and Practice of Iron Therapy for Anemic Infants in Primary Health Care in Bahrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anemia in children aged less than five years is a common medical problem worldwide. Iron deficiency anemia is the most prevalent anemia in infants and has been shown to be a public health problem. Many studies have been conducted on anemia among infants but the scope of the conducted studies was focused on the prevalence of anemia with less emphasis on the knowledge and parental practice of anemia and its treatment. Providing infants with iron supplements and simultaneously ensuring their compliance has shown an improvement in hemoglobin levels, along with a significant reduction in the prevalence of iron deficiency anemia (IDA).OBJECTIVE: To explore the level of parental knowledge and practice towards iron syrup.METHODS: A Cross- sectional study was carried out from 21st June to 2nd July, 2015 in ten Primary Health Care centers in Bahrain. During the study period, a phone survey was conducted using a self-constructed questionnaire. The response rate was 98%.RESULTS: In this study, the prevalence of anemia in infants is 45%. 58.4% of parents did not give the offered iron for their infants or stopped it within the first week of use. Overall, around 70% of parents correctly answered half or more of the knowledge questions regarding iron syrup side effects but only 32.5% of parents correctly answered half or more of the questions regarding IDA complications.CONCLUSION: Anemia is prevalent among 9 months old infants with considerable gaps in knowledge and practices of parents.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".