Men perspectives on attending antenatal care visits together with their pregnant partners in Misungwi district, rural Tanzania: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Mens’attendance with their pregnant partners at facility-based antenatal care (ANC) visits is important for maternal and child health and gender equality yet remains uncommon in parts of rural Tanzania. This study examined men’s perspectives on attending ANC with their pregnant partners in Misungwi District, Tanzania.Methods: Twelve individual interviews and five focus group discussions were conducted using semi-structured questionnaires with fathers, expectant fathers, and in-depth interviews were done to health providers, volunteer community health workers, and village leaders. Interviews were recorded and transcribed in Swahili and later translated to English. The research team conducted thematic analysis to identify common themes among interviews. Results: We identified two broad themes on the barriers to male attendance at facility-based ANC visits: (1) Perceived exclusion during ANC visits among men (2) Traditional gender norms resulting to low attendance among men.Conclusion: Attendance at health facility for ANC visits by men with their pregnant partners in the study areas were challenged by structural and local cultural norms. At the facility men were uncomfortable to sit with women due to lack of specific waiting area for men and that they perceived to be neglected. Local cultural norms demanded women to have secrecy in pregnancy while men perceived not to have a role of being with their partners during ANC visits.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".