The usability of Jordan stillbirths and neonatal deaths surveillance (JSANDS) system: results of focus group discussions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Jordan Stillbirths and Neonatal Deaths Surveillance system (JSANDS) is a newly developed system and is currently implemented in five large hospitals in Jordan. This study aimed at exploring the healthcare professionals' perception about the usability of JSANDS. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative approach, using focus group discussions, was adopted. A total of 5 focus groups including 23 focal points were conducted in five participating hospitals in Jordan. RESULTS: Data analysis identified nine main issues related to the JSANDS system: the system usefulness, the system performance, data quality, the system limitations, human rights, female empowerment, nurses' competencies strengthened, the sustainability of the JSANDS, and COVID-19 impact on the system. Users reported that JSANDS data were useful, the system was simple and easy to use, and the data were accurate and complete. However, some users reported that some technical issues need to be enhanced. CONCLUSIONS: JSANDS was perceived positively by the current users. According to them, it provides a formative and comprehensive data on stillbirths and neonatal deaths and their causes, and therefore, was recommended to be adopted by its users and scaled up.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".