MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009217616 · doi:10.1002/ijgo.13132

Challenges experienced by clients undergoing assisted reproductive technology in Ghana: An exploratory descriptive study

2020· article· en· W3009217616 on OpenAlexaff
Josephine Kyei, Adom Manu, Agnes M. Kotoh, Salima Meherali, Augustine Ankomah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNonprobability samplingAssisted reproductive technologyAnxietyData collectionExploratory researchQualitative researchDescriptive statisticsReproductive healthDescriptive researchResearch designFamily medicineNursingMedical educationPsychiatryPregnancyPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of clients accessing assisted reproductive technology (ART) services in selected health facilities in Greater Accra, Ghana. METHODS: An exploratory, descriptive, qualitative design using a purposive sampling technique was employed. Overall, 12 women and six men participated in the study. In-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. The Braun and Clarke (2006) procedure for data analysis was followed. Data collection spanned 9 months (January to October 2017). RESULTS: Five major challenges were identified that were commonly experienced by our participants at every phase of the ART treatment, including the high cost of ART treatment, the long distance to treatment centers, drug treatment challenges, disturbances in daily routine and work, and anxiety about pregnancy outcome. CONCLUSION: Given the emotional and psychological challenges reported by the participants in the present study, an integration of counseling units in the ART centers is recommended, manned by qualified personnel such as clinical psychologists and counselors to support clients at every stage of the treatment. Also, given the high cost of ART services, as reflected in the participants' views, it is recommended that private health insurance companies fund some aspect of ART services, such as laboratory investigations and medications.

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 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)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207