Determinants of Evidence Use by Frontline Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Staff in Selected Health Facilities in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The current paper examines the level of use of evidence and factors affecting the use of evidence by frontline maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) and reproductive and child health (RCH) staff in practice decisions in selected health facilities in Ghana. Methods Data was collected from 509 respondents drawn from 44 health facilities in three regions in Ghana. Means were used to examine the level of use of evidence, whiles cross-tabulations and Partial least Squares-based regression were used to examine factors that influence the use of evidence in practice decisions by frontline MNCH/RCH staff. Conclusion We argue that any effort to improve the use of evidence by frontline MNCH/RC staff in practice decisions should focus on improving attitudes and knowledge of staff as well as challenges related to the structure of the organisation. Given however that the score for attitude was relatively high, emphases should be on knowledge and organizational structure in particular, which had the lowest score even though it has the single most important effect on the use of evidence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".