Facility assessment and qualitative analysis of health worker perspectives on neonatal health in Malawi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The "Integrating a neonatal healthcare package for Malawi" (IMCHA#108030) project conducted mixed-methods to understand facility-based implementation factors for newborn health innovations in low-resourced health settings. The objective of the two datasets was to evaluate: (a) capacity of quality newborn care in three districts in southern Malawi, and (b) barriers and facilitators the scale up of bubble continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), a newborn health innovation to support babies with respiratory distress. DATA DESCRIPTION: The Integrated Maternal, Neonatal and Child Quality of Care Assessment and Improvement Tool (version April-2014) is a standardized facility assessment tool developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) that examines quality as well as quantity and availability. The facility survey is complemented by a qualitative dataset of illustrative quotes from health service providers and supervisors on bubble CPAP implementation factors. Research was conducted in one primary health centre (facility assessment only), three district-level hospitals (both) and a tertiary hospital (qualitative only) in southern Malawi. These datasets may be used by other researchers for insights into health systems of low-income countries and implementation factors for the roll-out of neonatal health innovations as well as to frame future research questions or preliminary exploratory research on similar topics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".