The global epidemic of abuse and disrespect during childbirth: History, evidence, interventions, and FIGO's mother−baby friendly birthing facilities initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence indicates that disrespectful/abusive/coercive service delivery by skilled providers in facilities, which results in actual or perceived poor quality of care, is directly and indirectly associated with adverse maternal and newborn outcomes. The present article reviews the evidence for disrespectful/abusive care during childbirth in facilities (DACF), describes examples of DACF, discusses organizations active in a rights-based respectful maternity care movement, and enumerates some strategies and interventions that have been identified to decrease DACF. It concludes with a discussion of one strategy, which has been recently implemented by FIGO with global partners-the International Pediatrics Association, International Confederation of Midwives, the White Ribbon Alliance, and WHO. This strategy, the Mother and Baby Friendly Birth Facility (MBFBF) Initiative, is a criterion-based audit process based on human rights' doctrines, and modeled on WHO/UNICEF's Baby Friendly Facility Initiative.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".