Quality of Antenatal Care Services in a Developing Country: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global adult lifetime risk of maternal mortality is 1 in 180; in Pakistan, it is 1 in 170; in developed regions, 1 in 4,900 (Alkema et al., 2016; Filippi, Chou, Ronsmans, Graham, & Say, 2016; World Health Organization [WHO], 2015). The differences in maternal mortality between developed and developing countries are mainly due to the quality of antenatal care (ANC) available in the two groups of countries. The purpose of this study was to assess the structural and procedural quality of ANC services provided and to assess satisfaction levels of women receiving ANC services in two large hospitals in Islamabad, Pakistan. A cross-sectional survey was conducted at the hospitals' outpatient maternal and child health clinics, with a random sample of 138 women. The overall quality of ANC was rated as good (61%), average (17.5%), or poor (17.5%). The findings suggest a need to cultivate quality of care at public health facilities, train health workers in communication skills, and build technical capacity by continuing education and supportive supervision to train health-care providers to follow standard protocols for provision of quality ANC 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
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".