INTERGROWTH-21st Gestational Dating and Fetal and Newborn Growth Standards in Peri-Urban Nairobi, Kenya: Quasi-Experimental Implementation Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The burden of preterm birth, fetal growth impairment, and associated neonatal deaths disproportionately falls on low- and middle-income countries where modern obstetric tools are not available to date pregnancies and monitor fetal growth accurately. The INTERGROWTH-21st gestational dating, fetal growth monitoring, and newborn size at birth standards make this possible. Objective: To scale up the INTERGROWTH-21st standards, it is essential to assess the feasibility and acceptability of their implementation and their effect on clinical decision-making in a low-resource clinical setting. Methods: This study protocol describes a pre-post, quasi-experimental implementation study of the standards at Jacaranda Health, a maternity hospital in peri-urban Nairobi, Kenya. All women with viable fetuses receiving antenatal and delivery services, their resulting newborns, and the clinicians caring for them from March 2016 to March 2018 are included. The study comprises a 12-month preimplementation phase, a 12-month implementation phase, and a 5-month post-implementation phase to be completed in August 2018. Quantitative clinical and qualitative data collected during the preimplementation and implementation phases will be assessed. A clinician survey was administered eight months into the implementation phase, month 20 of the study. Implementation outcomes include quantitative and qualitative analyses of feasibility, acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, fidelity, and penetration of the standards. Clinical outcomes include appropriateness of referral and effect of the standards on clinical care and decision-making. Descriptive analyses will be conducted, and comparisons will be made between pre- and postimplementation outcomes. Qualitative data will be analyzed using thematic coding and compared across time. The study was approved by the Amref Ethics and Scientific Review Committee (Kenya) and the Harvard University Institutional Review Board. Study results will be shared with stakeholders through conferences, seminars, publications, and knowledge management platforms. Results: From October 2016 to February 2017, over 90% of all full-time Jacaranda clinicians (26/28) received at least one of the three aspects of the INTERGROWTH-21st training: gestational dating ultrasound, fetal growth monitoring ultrasound, and neonatal anthropometry standards. Following the training, implementation and evaluation of the standards in Jacaranda Health’s clinical workflow will take place from March 2017 through March 5, 2018. Data analysis will be finalized, and results will be shared by August 2018. Conclusions: The findings of this study will have major implications on the national and global scale up of the INTERGROWTH-21st standards and on the process of scaling up global standards in general, particularly in limited-resource settings. Registered Report Identifier: RR1-10.2196/10293
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 | 0.048 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.008 |
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".