MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736264999 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30246-2

Progress and priorities for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health in Kenya: a Countdown to 2015 country case study

2017· article· en· W2736264999 on OpenAlexaff
Emily C Keats, Anthony Ngugi, William Macharia, Nadia Akseer, Emma Nelima Khaemba, Zaid Bhatti, Arjumand Rizvi, John Tole, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoPublic Health OntarioHospital for Sick Children
FundersUNICEFBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsChild mortalityPsychological interventionInfant mortalityMedicineCountdownMillennium Development GoalsDeveloping countryEnvironmental healthIntervention (counseling)Mortality rateDemographyReproductive healthGlobal healthPublic healthPopulationEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Progress in reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH) in Kenya has been inconsistent over the past two decades, despite the global push to foster accountability, reduce child mortality, and improve maternal health in an equitable manner. Although several cross-sectional assessments have been done, a systematic analysis of RMNCH in Kenya was needed to better understand the push and pull factors that govern intervention coverage and influence mortality trends. As such, we aimed to determine coverage and impact of key RMNCH interventions between 1990 and 2015. METHODS: We did a comprehensive, systematic assessment of RMNCH in Kenya from 1990 to 2015, using data from nationally representative Demographic Health Surveys done between 1989 and 2014. For comparison, we used modelled mortality estimates from the UN Inter-Agency Groups for Child and Maternal Mortality Estimation. We estimated time trends for key RMNCH indicators, as defined by Countdown to 2015, at both the national and the subnational level, and used linear regression methods to understand the determinants of change in intervention coverage during the past decade. Finally, we used the Lives Saved Tool (LiST) to model the effect of intervention scale-up by 2030. FINDINGS: After an increase in mortality between 1990 and 2003, there was a reversal in all mortality trends from 2003 onwards, although progress was not substantial enough for Kenya to achieve Millennium Development Goal targets 4 or 5. Between 1990 and 2015, maternal mortality declined at half the rate of under-5 mortality, and changes in neonatal mortality were even slower. National-level trends in intervention coverage have improved, although some geographical inequities remain, especially for counties comprising the northeastern, eastern, and northern Rift Valley regions. Disaggregation of intervention coverage by wealth quintile also revealed wide inequities for several health-systems-based interventions, such as skilled birth assistance. Multivariable analyses of predictors of change in family planning, skilled birth assistance, and full vaccination suggested that maternal literacy and family size are important drivers of positive change in key interventions across the continuum of care. LiST analyses clearly showed the importance of quality of care around birth for maternal and newborn survival. INTERPRETATION: Intensified and focused efforts are needed for Kenya to achieve the RMNCH targets for 2030. Kenya must build on its previous progress to further reduce mortality through the widespread implementation of key preventive and curative interventions, especially those pertaining to labour, delivery, and the first day of life. Deliberate targeting of the poor, least educated, and rural women, through the scale-up of community-level interventions, is needed to improve equity and accelerate progress. FUNDING: US Fund for UNICEF, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations105
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207