MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887064538 · doi:10.1186/s12978-018-0583-7

Barriers and facilitators to humanizing birth care in Tanzania: findings from semi-structured interviews with midwives and obstetricians

2018· article· en· W2887064538 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersUnited Nations Fund for Population Activities
KeywordsTanzaniaThematic analysisChildbirthNursingHealth careMedicineMindsetReproductive medicineQualitative researchGovernment (linguistics)PsychologyPregnancySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In Tanzania, the provision of humanized care is increasingly being emphasized in midwifery practice, yet studies regarding perceptions and practices of skilled health personnel towards the humanization of birth care are scare. Previous reviews have identified that abuse and disrespect is not limited to individuals but reflects systematic failures and deeply embedded provider attitudes and beliefs. Therefore, the current study aims to explore the perceptions and practices of skilled health personnel on humanizing birth care in Tanzania by identifying current barriers and facilitators. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were held with skilled health personnel including midwives (n = 6) and obstetricians (n = 2) working in the two district hospitals of Tanzania. Data were analyzed using thematic coding. RESULTS: Skilled health personnel identified systematic barriers to providing humanizing birth care. Systematic barriers included lack of space and limited facilities. Institutional norms and practices prohibited family involvement during the birth process,including beliefs that limited choice of birth position as well as disrespected beliefs, traditions, and culture. Participants also acknowledged four facilitators that improve the likelihood of humanized care during childbirth in Tanzania: ongoing education of skilled health personnel on respectful maternal care, institutional norms designed for continuous clinic support during childbirth, belief in the benefit of having family become active participants, and respecting maternal wishes when appropriate. CONCLUSION: To move forward with humanizing the birth process in Tanzania, it will be essential that systematic barriers are addressed as well as changing the mindset of personnel towards respectful maternal care. It will be essential for the government and private hospitals to revalue their labour wards to increase the space and staff allocated to each mother to enhance family-integrated care. Additionally, in-service training as well as incorporation of respectful maternal care during pre-service training is key to changing the culture in the labour ward.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.304 · 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