MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2959459885 · doi:10.3390/ijerph16132445

Determinants of Health Facility Utilization at Birth in South Sudan

2019· article· en· W2959459885 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Justin Bruno Tongun, David Mukunya, Thorkild Tylleskär, M B Sebit, James Tumwine, Grace Ndeezi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitetet i Bergen
KeywordsHealth facilityMedicineAttendanceBirth attendantOdds ratioDemographyCross-sectional studyLive birthQuarter (Canadian coin)OddsEnvironmental healthLogistic regressionPregnancyPopulationMaternal healthHealth servicesGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

South Sudan has a high maternal mortality ratio estimated at 800 deaths per 100,000 live births. Birth in health facilities with skilled attendants can lower this mortality. In this cross-sectional study, we determined the level and determinants of health facility utilization and skilled birth attendance in Jubek State, South Sudan. Mothers of children aged less than two years were interviewed in their homes. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with health facility births. Only a quarter of the mothers had given birth at health facilities, 209/810 (25.8%; 95% CI 18.2-35.3) and 207/810 had a skilled birth attendant (defined as either nurse, midwife, clinical officer, or doctor). Factors positively associated with health facility births were four or more antenatal visits (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 19; 95% CI 6.2, 61), secondary or higher education (AOR 7.9; 95% CI 3, 21), high socio-economic status (AOR 4.5; 95% CI 2.2, 9.4), and being primipara (AOR 2.9; 95% CI 1.5, 5.4). These findings highlight the need for efforts to increase health facility births in South Sudan.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health→Same topicGlobal Maternal and Child Health→French-language works237,207→