MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622520089 · doi:10.26634/jnur.6.4.10339

Cultural Practices of Rearing Preterm Infants: a Qualitative Study in a Tertiary Care Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan

2017· article· en· W2622520089 on OpenAlexaff
Sulaiman Salima, Tharani Ambreen, Lalani Sharifa, Shaikh Kiran

Bibliographic record

Venuei-manager’s Journal on Nursing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonprobability samplingThematic analysisContext (archaeology)HygieneExploratory researchQualitative researchMedicineTertiary careHealth careNursingGovernment (linguistics)PediatricsFamily medicinePopulationEnvironmental healthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research work explores the cultural practices of feeding and hygiene of preterm infants in the Pakistani context. A Qualitative descriptive-exploratory design has been used. Purposive sampling was utilized to recruit 17 mothers, who met inclusion criteria from a largest government tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. The semi-structured interview was used to collect the data, which lasted for approximately 45-60 minutes. Thematic analysis was conducted to analyze the key findings of the study. Welcoming newborn with 'honey' and herbal remedies were reported as a common ritual among mothers. Findings revealed differences in the time period of initial bath given to the preterm, ranges from 3 days to 1 month. These custom variations of rearing preterm have its own meaning in the prescribed culture; however, these customs are the insights to explore more on its effects on infants' health. This study provides useful insights into several practices of cultures, which serve as the determinants of infants' nutrition and health status. It provides an insight to the health care professionals to provide quality care to preterm infants.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuei-manager’s Journal on NursingSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207