Maternity Clients Satisfaction with Client-Health Provider Interaction in State-owned Secondary Health Facilities in Cross River State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Satisfaction with care is a facilitator and major determinant of facility-based maternal healthcare utilization. It is therefore worrisome when maternity clients express dissatisfaction with any aspect of maternity care as this tend to discourage them from patronizing facility-based maternal services. This study examined Maternity Clients Satisfaction with Client-Health Provider interaction in State-owned Secondary Health Facilities in Cross River State. METHODS: The study adopted a cross-sectional survey design while a multistage sampling technique was used to select a sample population of 754 women of reproductive age found accessing maternal healthcare services in the studied facilities. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data and data obtained was analyse using descriptive techniques. RESULT: Maternity clients were dissatisfied with the dimension of healthcare provider respect for clients as 321(42.6%) were dissatisfied and 133(17.6%) were “very dissatisfied”. Areas of dissatisfaction were health provider tone of voice, politeness and show of sympathy and support. However, clients were satisfied with healthcare provider provision of information as 234(31.0%) were “very satisfied” and 225(29.8%) were “satisfied”. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings, it was concluded that respect for clients dimension of client-health provider interaction is a cause of dissatisfaction among maternity clients accessing care in State-Owned secondary health facilities. It was therefore recommended that stakeholders should make recruitment and retention of healthcare providers a priority as work overload affects interpersonal interactions. Also, update workshops on respectful maternity care should be organized at regular intervals for healthcare providers involved in maternity services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".