MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3134123876 · doi:10.29063/ajrh2021/v25i1.11

Effect of pregnancy intention on the timing and sustained use of antenatal care services in Rwanda.

2021· article· en· W3134123876 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Gatsinzi Bagambe, Aline Umubyeyi, Isaac Luginaah

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUnintended pregnancyPregnancyLogistic regressionPrenatal carePopulationFamily medicineFamily planningObstetricsDemographyEnvironmental healthResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the relationship between intended pregnancy and utilization of antenatal care services in Rwanda. Using Demographic and Health Survey 2014/2015, secondary data was obtained on maternal health services utilization. We performed stepwise logistic regression analysis to examine the effect of independent variables on women's early and late utilization, as well as their sustained use of antenatal services. Dependent and main independent variables included: first trimester visits, completed antenatal visits and intended pregnancy respectively. Of 5,944 women sampled; 56.6% had made early antenatal visits and 44% had completed 4 visits. Unintended pregnancies were less likely to make early antenatal visits and complete 4 antenatal visits. Religion and being in union had positive association with standard antenatal visits; while age (>24 years), grand multiparty, and poor economic status had negative association. Our results call for deeper sensitization on utilization of antenatal services and more use of contraception to reduce unintended pregnancies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicGlobal Maternal and Child Health→French-language works237,207→