MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970302254 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028210

Factors associated with maternity waiting home use among women in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia: a multilevel cross-sectional analysis

2019· article· en· W2970302254 on OpenAlexafffund
Jaameeta Kurji, Lakew Abebe Gebretsadik, Muluemebet Abera Wordofa, Morankar Sudhakar, Yisalemush Asefa, Getachew Kiros, Abebe Mamo, Nicole Bergen, Shifera Asfaw, Kunuz Haji Bedru, Gebeyehu Bulcha, Ronald Labonté, Monica Taljaard, Manisha A. Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGlobal Affairs CanadaInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsMedicineHealth facilityCross-sectional studyReferralAbortionChildbirthSocioeconomic statusPregnancyOddsDemographyOdds ratioReproductive healthEnvironmental healthFamily medicinePopulationLogistic regressionHealth services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify individual-, household- and community-level factors associated with maternity waiting home (MWH) use in Ethiopia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline household survey data from an ongoing cluster-randomised controlled trial using multilevel analyses. SETTING: Twenty-four rural primary care facility catchment areas in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. PARTICIPANTS: 3784 women who had a pregnancy outcome (live birth, stillbirth, spontaneous/induced abortion) 12 months prior to September 2016. OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was self-reported MWH use for any pregnancy; hypothesised factors associated with MWH use included woman's education, woman's occupation, household wealth, involvement in health-related decision-making, companion support, travel time to health facility and community-levels of institutional births. RESULTS: Overall, 7% of women reported past MWH use. Housewives (OR: 1.74, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.52), women with companions for facility visits (OR: 2.15, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.23), wealthier households (fourth vs first quintile OR: 3.20, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.33) and those with no health facility nearby or living >30 min from a health facility (OR: 2.37, 95% CI 1.80 to 3.13) had significantly higher odds of MWH use. Education, decision-making autonomy and community-level institutional births were not significantly associated with MWH use. CONCLUSIONS: Utilisation inequities exist; women with less wealth and companion support experienced more difficulties in accessing MWHs. Short duration of stay and failure to consider MWH as part of birth preparedness planning suggests local referral and promotion practices need investigation to ensure that women who would benefit the most are linked to MWH services.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations62
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207