Premises and Rationale of Contraceptive Services Accessing in Southern Ethiopia: A Phenomenological Exploration.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite the encouraging engagements of the government and health workers in the provision of contraceptive services in Ethiopia, there are limited documents revealing the knowledge and experiences of the health service providers, health leaders and the beneficiaries about the premises and rationale for accessing contraceptive services. Therefore, the study was conducted with the aim of exploring health care providers and user’s lived experiences under which premises/rationale is the service being given. Methods Interpretative phenomenological qualitative methodology was employed to explore the lived experiences of health service providers, managers and service user women. Data were collected using focus group discussions and key informant interview. Data were analyzed using an interpretive phenomenological analysis framework including phases of data immersion, transcribing, coding, theme development and phenomenological interpretation through hermeneutic circle. Result The study captured enabling context for contraceptive service provision and use from various rationales, organization and expansion of contraceptive services to the community and households. The finding indicated that contraceptive service provision from the demographic, socio-economic perspectives understood adequately all in the hierarchies but the human right based rationale was less obvious except at higher level health leaders. Conclusion The study concludes that the premises/rationale for contraceptive services provision from the bigger picture for providing contraceptive services, the human right approach, remained elusive as one moves down to the hierarchies in health care organizations. On the other hand, the demographic, economic and health rationales are more obvious. Hence, the study recommends the disconnect in the broader premises of providing contraceptive services (the human rights approach) has to properly be communicated to the lower level health managers, service providers and service users. Key words: Demography, Economy, Human rights, Contraception, Phenomenology, Rationale
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".