The contribution of district prioritization on maternal and newborn health interventions coverage in rural India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2001, India prioritized eight most socioeconomically disadvantaged states known as Empowered Action Group (EAG) states and in 2013, it prioritized 190 of the 718 as high priority districts (HPDs) to accelerate the decline in maternal and newborn mortality. This paper assesses whether the HPDs achieved a greater coverage of maternal and newborn health interventions than the non-HPDs and HPDs in EAG states achieved greater coverage than those in non-EAG states. METHODS: We used data from the Sample Registration System to assess rural neonatal mortality trends in EAG states and all India. We computed a co-coverage index based on seven maternal and newborn health interventions from the 2015/16 National Family Health Survey. Difference in differences (DID) analyses were used to examine the contribution of district prioritization, considering the HPDs and the illiterate as treatment groups and 2013 as the time cut-off for the pre- and post-treatment. RESULTS: ≤ 0.05). The coverage gains for illiterate mothers were greater than for literate mothers, especially in the HPDs. CONCLUSIONS: The district prioritization in India is associated with greater improvements in the coverage of maternal and newborn health services in EAG states and the HPDs, including reductions in inequalities within those states and districts. There are however still large gaps between states and districts and within districts by the mother's literacy status that need further prioritization to make progress towards the SDG targets by 2030.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".