The fear of social stigma experienced by men: A barrier to male involvement in maternal services in Misungwi District, rural Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Evidence have shown that male involvement is associated with improved maternal health outcomes. In rural Tanzania, men are the main decision makers and may determine women’s access to health services and ultimately their health outcomes. Despite efforts geared towards enhancing male participation in maternal health care, participation remains low; one barrier that impacts men’s participation is the fear and experience of social stigma. This study, built on previous findings about men’s perspectives in attending antenatal care appointments in Misungwi district in Tanzania, more closely examines the fear of social stigma among men attending maternal health services. Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted on data collected for a broader research study on male involvement in maternal services. We conducted twelve focus group discussions with males of reproductive age, and six in depth interviews with health care workers and village leaders. Interviews were audiotaped and transcripts were transcribed and translated to English. Transcripts were organized in NVivo V.12 then analyzed using thematic approach. Results: Three main themes were found to create fear of social stigma for men: 1. Fear of HIV testing; 2. Traditional Gender Norms and 3. Financial and material insecurity. Conclusion: Respondent’s experiences reveal that fear of social stigma is a major barrier to attend maternal services with their partners. Attention must be given to the complex sociocultural norms and social context that underly this issue at the community level. Strategies to address fear of social stigma require an understanding of the real reasons some men do not attend maternal services and require community engagement of community health workers (CHWs), government officials and other stakeholders who understand the local context.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".