‘No other alternative than to compromise’: Experiences of midwives/nurses providing care in the context of scarce resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Midwives and nurses play a critical role in safeguarding the lives of women in resource-constrained African countries. Working within the context of scarce resources may undermine their moral agency and hinder their ability to care. The purpose of this paper is to understand the influence of resource scarcity on midwifery and nursing care and practice. A critical ethnography was conducted in the obstetric department of three tertiary-level facilities in Ghana. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 30 midwives and nurses and semistructured interviews, field notes and documentary materials were used to generate in-depth understanding. Ethical approval was granted from Canada and Ghana and written, and ongoing informed consent was obtained from the participants. Five conceptual themes depicting the impact of scarce resources on midwifery and nursing care were discovered: compromised care, constrained care, dehumanized care, missed care and disengaged care. Improving the maternal health of women and averting avoidable maternal morbidity and mortality require governments and institutions to invest in health infrastructure that will support the delivery of ethical and safe midwifery care for women in their most vulnerable period.
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 | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".