MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determinants of skilled birth attendants in Nepal: a case of Surkhet district

2022· article· en· W4220946996 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sunil Kumar Shah, José Augusto Simões

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildbirthMedicineIncentiveQuarter (Canadian coin)Birth attendantPovertyPopulationHealth facilitySocioeconomicsEnvironmental healthNursingPregnancyGeographyMaternal healthEconomic growthHealth services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Safe delivery incentive program was introduced to increase the skilled attendants at births. The program provided childbirth by skilled birth attendants as well as incentives to skilled birth attendants ‘cash’ to women giving birth in a health facility in addition to incentives to health provider for each delivery attended, either at home or the facility. Due to its implementation and administrative delays, the program was reformed and implemented as a ‘safer mother program’ popularly known as “aama-suraksha-karyakram” since January 2009.Methods: The study was conducted in Surkhet district of Nepal. Surkhet is a hilly district and is head-quarter of mid-western development region of Nepal. There is one hospital, 5 PHCCs, 9 HPs and 38 SHPs serving 288,527 people in the district. The delivery by trained health worker (HW) in the district is 31.8% in 2005/06 which has increased about two times for two years. Surkhet is one of the districts monitoring the process indicators for safe motherhood programme in Nepal. Birth preparedness package programme has been implementing in the district from this year. The study population were the mothers within the age group of 15 to 49 years in Surkhet district. The sampling frame of the study was the mothers who had delivered the baby within 12 months preceding the survey.Results: About one third mothers, having 0-5 poverty score, utilised delivery assisted by HWs, while about three fourth of them having more than 5 score utilised HWs as delivery assistant. Higher educated mothers utilised HWs as delivery assistant more than that of higher educated husband. Among higher educated mothers, about 85% utilised delivery assisted by HWs, while it was about 75% for higher educated husband. Occupation of mother was also significantly associated with utilisation of delivery by HWs. Mother having office work utilised about 5 times higher HWs than others as their delivery assistant. The distance to health facility was significantly associated with utilisation of delivery attendant (p value <0.001). The mothers with less travelling time to reach health facility were more likely to utilise HWs as delivery attendant. About three fourth mothers who needed less than half an hour utilised delivery assisted by HWs. There was equal proportion of mothers who needed 30-59 minutes to reach the nearest health facility. In the other hand, about 73% of mothers who needed one hour or more to reach health facility utilised others as delivery assistant. Perceived quality of service to nearby health facility by mothers was also significantly associated with utilisation of HWs as delivery attendant (p value <0.05). About two third of mothers perceiving good quality of service at local health facility utilised HWs as delivery attendant while, it was only 44% among mothers perceiving poor quality of services.Conclusions: There should be adequate planning and preparation at all levels of health facilities; implementing a new program should not adversely affect another existing service delivery system. For the optional implementation, hospital organogram should be revised; and physical facilities and the low-risk birthing-centers with referral linkages should be expanded.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Community Medicine and Public HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207