MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3047900422 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v12n8p196

Perception of Mobile Health Maternal Healthcare Services among Pregnant Women in Nigeria

2020· article· en· W3047900422 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mpho Chaka, Gloria A. Ishiwu, Chinwe Catherine Okpoko

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile phoneHealth careMaternal healthDeveloping countryMedicineBusinessReproductive healthEnvironmental healthNursingHealth servicesEconomic growthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The daunting challenge of maternal deaths resulting from preventable causes has remained a major public health issue in the developing countries of Africa and it is yet to be fully tackled. Empirical knowledge of the awareness of mobile health (m-health) maternal healthcare services among pregnant women in these parts, therefore, holds an important key to achieving success in reproductive health issues across the affected populations. Despite the introduction of mobile health services, the desirable state of reduced maternal mortality figures is yet to be achieved. This study sought to ascertain the level of awareness, extent of adoption and the challenges of m-health maternal services in southeast Nigeria. Our analysis of questionnaire-survey data on pregnant women from three states of Nigeria shows that 89.7% of respondents were aware of m-health in the study areas. However, awareness of the existence of m-health for maternal healthcare is different from usage of m-health in maternal healthcare delivery. The major challenges to its use are network failure from service providers and lack of funds for subscription, which may also mean that mobile phone ownership alone does not determine the success of m-health maternal health services in these parts. This leads to one of the recommendations that those who design mobile health application should consider offline mechanism as an alternative to the recurring network failure, for ease of use of such technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→