MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967971230 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2017-004027

Mothers’ perceptions of the practice of kangaroo mother care for preterm neonates in sub-Saharan Africa: a qualitative systematic review protocol

2019· article· en· W2967971230 on OpenAlexaff
Pontius Bayo, Gasthony Alobo, Garumma Tolu Feyissa, Loubna Belaid

Bibliographic record

VenueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLKangaroo careMedicineLow birth weightQualitative researchNursingScopusInclusion (mineral)Grounded theoryMEDLINEPediatricsFamily medicinePsychologyPsychological interventionPregnancySociologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to explore the experiences of mothers with the practice of kangaroo mother care (KMC) for preterm neonates at home in sub-Saharan Africa. INTRODUCTION: About 7000 newborn babies die every day around the world. About 80% of these deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia. Preterm birth and low birth weight (LBW) are major causes of newborn deaths in these regions. Kangaroo mother care is an alternative way to care for LBW preterm neonates; however, the rate of practice remains low. Studies have identified a range of barriers, primarily at the healthcare system level, but there is a dearth of evidence on the factors and enablers at the community level. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will consider studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa on the perceptions and experiences of mothers who have given birth to preterm babies and have practiced KMC at home. Qualitative studies in English and French conducted from January 1979 to the present that exclusively use qualitative research methods including, but not limited to, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research and feminist research will be included. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, African Index Medicus (AIM), Academic Search Complete, CINAHL complete, Education Source and Health source: Nursing/Academic Edition will be searched. Eligible studies will be critically appraised using the standardized Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Findings will be pooled using the meta-aggregative approach, and confidence will be assessed according to the ConQual approach.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207