Information Provided by Nurses to Clients during Family Planning Counselling Sessions and Knowledge of Clients on Chosen Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The fundamental problem which prompted this research study lies in the observation that family planning clients do not receive the required information for decision making on the methods that meet their reproductive needs.OBJECTIVES: To determine family planning information provided to the clients by nurses during family planning counselling sessions in the Khomas region to describe the knowledge of the clients on the specific chosen methodMETHODS: A quantitative research design recruited 184 family planning clients and 65 nurses. Closed ended questionnaire was used for data collection.RESULTS: Majority (89%) of nurses indicated that they always explained the advantages of the method selected to the clients, contrary to the majority (77%) of the clients reported advantages never been explained to them. Ninety five percent of the nurses indicated that they always explained to clients how to use the method they had selected, while the majority (72%) of the clients were in disagreement. The majority of the nurses (78%) indicated that they always explained the possible side effects of the method to their clients while, 63% of the clients indicated that the side effects were not explained to them. Only 22% of the injectable contraceptive users indicated changes in menstrual bleeding as a common side effect, while the majority (66 %) indicated that they did not know.CONCLUSION: According to clients’, information provided to them was inadequate. Equally, the majority of clients had not demonstrated sound knowledge about their method of choice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".