MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4245749991 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-115748/v2

Training Needs Assessment of Health Care Professionals in Reproductive, Maternal and Newborn Health in a Low-Income Setting in Tanzania

2021· preprint· en· W4245749991 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Columba Mbekenga, Eunice Pallangyo, Tumbwene Mwansisya, Kahabi Isangula, Loveluck Mwasha, James Orwa, Micheal Mugerwa, Michaela Mantel, Leonard Subi, Secilia Mrema, David Siso, Edna Selestine, Marleen Temmerman, Grace Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of CanadaAga Khan Foundation CanadaAga Khan Foundation
KeywordsTanzaniaReproductive healthTraining (meteorology)Health professionalsMedicineNursingEnvironmental healthFamily medicineHealth careEconomic growthSocioeconomicsGeographyPopulationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Healthcare delivery globally and particularly in low-income setting is challenged by multiple, complex and dynamic problems. The reproductive, maternal and newborn health (RMNH) care is among the most affected areas resulting into high maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity across the Sub Saharan region and Tanzania in particular. However, under-investment in adequate training and capacity development among health care workers (HCWs) is reported worldwide and contributes to the critical shortages, and lack of adequate knowledge and skills among HCWs. The aim of this study was to assess the training needs among HCWs of RMNH care in selected health facilities of Mwanza, Tanzania. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive and analytic survey using a self- administered questionnaire was conducted in 36 out of 80 health care facilities included in Improving Access to Reproductive, Maternal and Newborn Health in Mwanza, Tanzania (IMPACT) project within the 8 councils of Mwanza region in Tanzania. The training needs assessment (TNA) tool adapted from the Hennessy-Hicks’ Training Needs Assessment Questionnaire (TNAQ) was used for data collection. The HCWs rated on the importance of their task and their current performance of the task. The differences in scores were calculated to identify the greatest training needs.Results: Out of 153 HCWs who responded to the TNA questionnaire, majority were registered (n=62) and enrolled (n=43) nurses. Ninety percent (n= 137) were from government-owned health facilities, mostly from hospitals 68 (45%). Training needs were high in 16 areas (out of 49) including cervical cancer screening and care; accessing research resources; basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care; and sexual and gender-based violence. The overall perceived importance of the training needs was significantly associated with perceived performance of tasks related to RMNH services (Pearson Correlation (r) = .256; p <001).Conclusions: The study highlights 16 (out of 49) training gaps as perceived by HCWs in RMNH in Tanzania. The utilization of findings from the TNA has great potential to facilitate designing of effective trainings for local RMNH services delivery hence improve the overall quality of care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.407 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicGlobal Maternal and Child Health→French-language works237,207→