Perinatal Loss in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates from the World Health Organization (WHO) reveal that perinatal loss is a threat in sub-Saharan Africa. It has been established that half of all stillbirths and neonatal deaths occur around the onset of labour to delivery. Approximately 75% of these deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa, giving the region the highest level of perinatal loss in the world. There are limited studies that have investigated the experiences of and support for women who experience perinatal loss. This article reports on a scoping review that aimed to explore and summarise the existing literature about the experiences of perinatal loss among couples in sub-Saharan Africa, and to identify the relevant support health professionals and the community give to improve the well-being of parents experiencing perinatal loss. Electronic databases were used to search comprehensively peer-reviewed articles and grey literature between 2005 and 2019. Two independent reviewers screened and analysed the selected articles through a data charting procedure. Eight articles met the inclusion criteria for the study. They were all qualitative studies: seven of them were peer-reviewed articles and one was a master’s thesis. The findings were categorised under two themes: (1) emotional experiences of perinatal loss among sub-Saharan African women; and (2) support systems available for these women. The literature review highlighted the limited research and lack of literature about the emotional experiences of bereaved couples in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, the literature review revealed that bereaved couples need more support to reduce psychological trauma. The study findings demonstrated the need for more research to enhance understanding of and improve the services provided to bereaved couples and their families.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".