MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3191267921 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-755494/v1

Quality of Pre-Service Midwifery Education in Public and Private Midwifery Schools in Afghanistan: A Cross Sectional Survey

2021· preprint· en· W3191267921 on OpenAlexaff
Partamin Manalai, Sheena Currie, Massoma Jafari, Nasratullah Ansari, Hannah Tappis, Faridullah Atiqzai, Young Mi Kim, Jos van Roosmalen, Jelle Stekelenburg

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsAthena Sustainable Materials Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstetricsCurriculumPreceptorChildbirthMedicineNursingMedical educationNonprobability samplingPsychologyPopulationPregnancyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Midwives are the key skilled birth attendants in Afghanistan. Rapid assessment of public and private midwifery education schools was conducted in 2017 to examine compliance with national educational standards. Aim was to assess midwifery education to inform Afghanistan Nurses and Midwives Council and other stakeholders priorities for improving quality of midwifery education. Methods A cross-sectional assessment was conducted from September 12–December 17, 2017, using a modified Midwifery Education Rapid Assessment Tool to assess education quality aspects related to infrastructure, management, teachers, preceptors, clinical practice sites, curriculum and students in 29 midwifery schools. A purposive sample of six Institute of Health Sciences schools, seven Community Midwifery Education schools and 16 private midwifery schools was used. Participants were midwifery school staff, students and clinical preceptors. Results Libraries were available in 28/29 (97%) schools, active skills labs in 20/29 (69%), childbirth simulators in 17/29 (59%) and newborn resuscitation models in 28/29 (97%). School managers were midwives in 21/29 (72%) schools. Median numbers of students per teacher and students per preceptor were 8 (range 2–50) and 6 (range 2–20). There were insufficient numbers of teachers practicing midwifery (132/163; 81%), trained in teaching skills (113/163; 69%) and trained in emergency obstetric and newborn care (88/163; 54%). There was an average of 13 students at clinical sites in each shift. Students managed an average of 15 births independently during their training, while 40 births are required. Twenty-four percent (7/29) of schools used the national 2015 curriculum alone or combined with an older one. Ninety-one percent (633/697) of students reported access to clinical sites and skills labs. Students mentioned, however, insufficient clinical practice, lack of education materials, transport facilities and disrespect from school teachers, preceptors and clinical site providers as challenges. Conclusions Positive findings included availability of required infrastructure, amenities, approved curricula in 7 of the 29 midwifery schools, appropriate clinical sites and students’ commitment to work as midwives upon graduation. Gaps identified were use of different often outdated curricula, inadequate clinical practice, underqualified teachers and preceptors and failure to graduate all students with sufficient skills such as independently having supported 40 births.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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