MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939230855 · doi:10.1080/17441692.2019.1597142

Maternity waiting areas – serving all women? Barriers and enablers of an equity-oriented maternal health intervention in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia

2019· article· en· W2939230855 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGlobal Affairs CanadaAlzahra UniversityJimma UniversityInternational Development Research CentreUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsEquity (law)Intervention (counseling)Maternal healthGender equityMedicineSocioeconomicsNursingEconomic growthEnvironmental healthHealth servicesPopulationPolitical scienceSociologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ethiopia, maternal waiting areas (MWAs) - residential areas near health facilities where women can stay while waiting to give birth - are community-based, equity-oriented interventions to improve maternal outcomes among rural populations. In this qualitative study we sought to explore the barriers and enablers that Health Extension Workers (HEWs) encounter when engaging with communities about MWAs. We conducted semi-structured interviews with HEWs across rural sites in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. Drawing from an ecological model of social determinants of maternal and child health, we analysed data using thematic coding methods. HEWs reported a variety of factors that determined MWA use, including the number of children at home, previous childbirth experiences, community support networks, decision making practices within families, the availability and acceptability of health services, geographical access, and health beliefs. HEWs worked to increase the use of MWAs by engaging with husbands and communities, raising awareness in target groups of women, and managing community participation. Policies and practices that support enhanced training for HEWs, increased resources for communities, and greater opportunities for HEWs to liaise with decision makers at various levels of influence are possible ways forward to improve MWA use, specifically, and maternal and neonatal/child health outcomes more generally.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.309 · 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