Adequacy and timeliness of antenatal care visits among Ethiopian women: a community-based panel study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purposes of the study are; (A) to identify whether Ethiopian women's antenatal care (ANC) visits are adequate and timely and (B) to explore factors that determine these. DESIGN: Panel study design. SETTING: Ethiopia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2855 women nested within 217 enumeration areas. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Adequacy and timeliness of ANC visits. RESULTS: Of all the 2855 respondents, 65% had made an ANC visit once, while 26.8% initiated ANC visits in a timely way and 43.3% attended adequate ANC visits. Rural residence (adjusted OR (AOR)=0.55, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.84), attending higher level of education (AOR=2.64, 95% CI: 1.47 to 4.77), being multipara (AOR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.89) and encouragement by partners to attend clinic for ANC (AOR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.14 to 3.44) were significantly associated with timeliness of ANC visit. Similarly, residing in rural areas (AOR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.35), attending higher level of education (AOR=2.96, 95% CI: 1.38 to 6.15), encouragement by partners to attend clinic for ANC (AOR=2.11, 95% CI: 1.31 to 3.40) and timeliness of ANC visit (AOR=4.59, 95% CI: 2.93 to 7.21) were significantly associated with adequacy of ANC visits. CONCLUSIONS: A quarter of the pregnant women started ANC visits during the first trimester and nearly half attended adequate ANC visits with wider disparities across regions of their origin and their background characteristics. Concerted efforts on tailored interventions for rural residents, female education and partner involvement are recommended for early and adequate ANC visit(s).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".