Effect and feasibility of district level scale up of maternal, newborn and child health interventions in Pakistan: a quasi-experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pakistan has a high burden of maternal, newborn and child morbidity and mortality. Several factors including weak scale-up of evidence-based interventions within the existing health system; lack of community awareness regarding health conditions; and poverty contribute to poor outcomes. Deaths and morbidity are largely preventable if a combination of community and facility-based interventions are rolled out at scale. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Umeed-e-Nau (UeN) (New Hope) project aims is to improve maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) in eight high-burden districts of Pakistan by scaling up of evidence-based interventions. The project will assess interventions focused on, first, improving the quality of MNCH care at primary level and secondary level. Second, interventions targeting demand generation such as community mobilisation, creating awareness of healthy practices and expanding coverage of outreach services will be evaluated. Third, we will also evaluate interventions targeting the improvement in quality of routine health information and promotion of use of the data for decision-making. Hypothesis of the project is that roll out of evidence-based interventions at scale will lead to at least 20% reduction in perinatal mortality and 30% decrease in diarrhoea and pneumonia case fatality in the target districts whereas two intervention groups will serve as internal controls. Monitoring and evaluation of the programme will be undertaken through conducting periodical population level surveys and quality of care assessments. Descriptive and multivariate analytical methods will be used for assessing the association between different factors, and difference in difference estimates will be used to assess the impact of the intervention on outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ethics approval was obtained from the Aga Khan University Ethics Review Committee. The findings of the project will be shared with relevant stakeholders and disseminated through open access peer-reviewed journal articles. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04184544; Pre-results.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".