MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003748354 · doi:10.4314/mmj.v31i4.4

A quantitative cross-sectional survey of psychosocial stimulation and counselling interventions at nutritional rehabilitation units in Southern Malawi

2019· article· en· W3003748354 on OpenAlexafffund
Allison I Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueMalawi Medical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersGrand Challenges CanadaNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchGovernment of Canada
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialPsychological interventionRehabilitationMalnutritionIntervention (counseling)BreastfeedingFamily medicineNursingPhysical therapyPsychiatryPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Inpatient treatment at nutritional rehabilitation units (NRUs) is needed for children who have severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and acute illness, loss of appetite, or severe oedema. World Health Organization guidelines state that nutritional counselling should be done with primary caregivers at NRUs. These recommendations also include psychosocial stimulation interventions to improve developmental outcomes in children with SAM. However, there is limited information about the delivery of these types of interventions for caregivers and children in NRU settings. The primary objective of this research was therefore to obtain data about NRU resources, activities, and protocols relevant to psychosocial stimulation and counselling interventions during inpatient treatment of children with SAM. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered by interview at all 16 NRUs in seven districts in Southern Malawi. Participants were health workers, nurses, and nutritionists employed at the respective NRUs. Results: The response rate was 100% across NRUs. Half of participants said that psychosocial stimulation interventions are conducted at their respective NRUs, yet none of the NRUs have protocols for delivery of these interventions. Furthermore, 7/16 (44%) NRUs have no resources for psychosocial stimulation including play materials. Thirteen of 16 (81%) participants said that they feel this type of intervention is very important and 3/16 (19%) participants said that this somewhat important for children with SAM. All NRUs provide counselling to caregivers about breastfeeding and nutrition; 15/16 (94%) also give counselling about water, sanitation and hygiene. Conclusions: Ultimately, results from this survey highlighted that there is a need to invest in comprehensive interventions to improve developmental and nutritional outcomes in these vulnerable children requiring admission to NRUs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMalawi Medical JournalSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207