MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011877371 · doi:10.7189/jogh.10.010505

Discordance in postnatal care between mothers and newborns: Measurement artifact or missed opportunity?

2020· article· en· W3011877371 on OpenAlexaff
Agbessi Amouzou, Elizabeth Hazel, Lara M. E. Vaz, Sanni Yaya, Allisyn C. Moran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsConcordanceMedicineLogistic regressionRespondentDemographyPediatricsObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postnatal care (PNC) for mothers and newborns is essential to monitor risks of morbidity and adverse conditions following delivery. Current estimates of the coverage of PNC show substantial discordance between mothers and newborns. We investigate the sources of this discordance in Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). METHODS: We used DHS data from 48 countries collected since 2011, spanning phases 6 and 7 of the survey program with 32 and 16 surveys, respectively, analyzed. We assessed the distribution of the reported timing of PNC and conducted a sensitivity analysis that excludes/includes PNC reported within 0-1 hour or PNC in the day 2. Agreement in PNC reporting considered four groups: (1) Concordance, neither mother nor newborn received PNC; (2) Concordance, mother and newborn pair received PNC; (3) Discordance, mother received PNC and newborn did not; of (4) Discordance, mother did not receive PNC but the newborn did. We carried out logistic regressions to understand correlates of PNC discordance. All analyses distinguished phase 6 surveys from phase 7. RESULTS: We found substantial differences in the PNC coverage estimated between phase 6 and phase 7 surveys. The phase 7 PNC questions for newborns were improved to increase the understanding of the questions by respondent which probably led to reducing the large PNC gap between mothers and newborns observed in phase 6 surveys. With phase 6 surveys, PNC coverage for mother was estimated on average at 62% compared to only 31% for newborns. No such gap was observed for phase 7 surveys, where for both mothers and newborns, the PNC coverage estimate was similar, at 56%. For both phases, over half of the reported PNC for mothers and newborns occurred during 0-1 hour following delivery, leading to substantial overestimation of PNC coverage, due to confusion between intrapartum care and PNC. There were 37% discordant cases between mother and newborn, largely in favor of the mother in phase 6 surveys, compared to 16% in phase 7 surveys. In phase 6 surveys, discordant PNC cases were observed largely among facility deliveries vs non-facility deliveries (44% compared to 19%). CONCLUSIONS: Current estimates of coverage of PNC from DHS phase 6 surveys appears to include substantial level of measurement noises that could explain substantial part of the mother-newborn discordance in PNC. The PNC estimates appear to capture a substantial number of intrapartum care. Current measurement approaches warrant further validation to ensure accurate monitoring of the PNC programs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Global HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207