MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101484121 · doi:10.1186/s12884-020-03389-7

Influencing factors for prevention of postpartum hemorrhage and early detection of childbearing women at risk in Northern Province of Rwanda: beneficiary and health worker perspectives

2020· article· en· W3101484121 on OpenAlexafffund
Oliva Bazirete, Manassé Nzayirambaho, Aline Umubyeyi, Marie Chantal Uwimana, Marilyn Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersGovernment of CanadaGlobal Affairs CanadaUniversity of Rwanda
KeywordsFocus groupMedicineBeneficiaryContext (archaeology)Reproductive medicineQualitative researchNursingFamily medicineHealth careInterpersonal communicationPsychologyPregnancySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Reduction of maternal mortality and morbidity is a major global health priority. However, much remains unknown regarding factors associated with postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) among childbearing women in the Rwandan context. The aim of this study is to explore the influencing factors for prevention of PPH and early detection of childbearing women at risk as perceived by beneficiaries and health workers in the Northern Province of Rwanda. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive exploratory study was drawn from a larger sequential exploratory-mixed methods study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 women who experienced PPH within the 6 months prior to interview. In addition, focus group discussions were conducted with: women's partners or close relatives (2 focus groups), community health workers (CHWs) in charge of maternal health (2 focus groups) and health care providers (3 focus groups). A socio ecological model was used to develop interview guides describing factors related to early detection and prevention of PPH in consideration of individual attributes, interpersonal, family and peer influences, intermediary determinants of health and structural determinants. The research protocol was approved by the University of Rwanda, College of Medicine and Health Sciences Institutional Ethics Review Board. RESULTS: We generated four interrelated themes: (1) Meaning of PPH: beliefs, knowledge and understanding of PPH: (2) Organizational factors; (3) Caring and family involvement and (4) Perceived risk factors and barriers to PPH prevention. The findings from this study indicate that PPH was poorly understood by women and their partners. Family members and CHWs feel that their role for the prevention of PPH is to get the woman to the health facility on time. The main factors associated with PPH as described by participants were multiparty and retained placenta. Low socioeconomic status and delays to access health care were identified as the main barriers for the prevention of PPH. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the identified factors could enhance early prevention of PPH among childbearing women. Placing emphasis on developing strategies for early detection of women at higher risk of developing PPH, continuous professional development of health care providers, developing educational materials for CHWs and family members could improve the prevention of PPH. Involvement of all levels of the health system was recommended for a proactive prevention of PPH. Further quantitative research, using case control design is warranted to develop a screening tool for early detection of PPH risk factors for a proactive prevention.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207