Maternal and child health handbook: Utilization and lessons learned from selected evidence-based studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The MCH handbook MCHHB) is a home-based health record for both mother and child. It records the health condition of the mother throughout pregnancy, delivery, and the postnatal period, as well as the condition of the child such as immunization records and growth monitoring. This review addresses the various uses of MCH Handbooks in different selected countries since 1980. In addition, the objective is also to provide an updated overview of the lessons learned from selected evidence-based studies. Literature was reviewed using appropriate search terms in Pubmed and Ovid medline databases and narratively reported the findings of the included studies. Studies from different countries on impact of MCH handbook showed that the intervention increased antenatal care (ANC) attendance, delivery with skilled birth attendants (SBAs) and delivery at a health facility, even after adjusting for maternal age, education and economic conditions. The qualitative data also indicated that the handbook was well received and culturally appropriate. The MCH handbook is a reasonable and superior alternative to current card-type maternal records and also supportive to continuum of care to ensure better health for mothers and children.
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 | 0.051 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".