Knowledge of anganwadi workers about integrated child development services: a study in Sitamarhi district of Bihar, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The anganwadi worker (AWW) is the backbone of integrated child development services (ICDS) for delivering the services of the program. Being a key functionary, her level of knowledge regarding various components of ICDS is linked to the ultimate outcome of the ICDS program. Thus, this study was aimed to assess the level of knowledge among AWW regarding services of ICDS.Methods: This was a cross sectional study in which level of knowledge regarding ICDS among anganwadi worker was assessed using structured questionnaire. The primary outcome of the study is the knowledge of AWW about ICDS component services. Descriptive statistics was presented as frequency and percentage for categorical variable. The knowledge of AWW was assessed by knowledge score made under all the themes of the questionnaire and was presented as mean and median score. Analysis was done in STATA version 14.2.Results: Nearly 55% of the respondents were not aware about ICDS services. Whereas majority had knowledge on growth monitoring and immunization respectively, above the median score, only 39% of AWW had knowledge on nutritional supplementation above median score. The variables such as education level and training of AWW showed significant association with the knowledge of ICDS components.Conclusions: There is need for improving knowledge and awareness about various ICDS components and the training quality provided to AWWs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".