The Usability, Acceptability, and Performance of the Maternal PPH Wrap Device in Controlling Postpartum Hemorrhage: A Pilot Study at Kawempe National Referral Hospital, Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Timely intervention for atonic postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) significantly reduces the incidence of death from PPH. However, technological solutions geared towards this have not received substantial adoption by the health community in sub-Saharan Africa due to limiting factors such as; cumbersome application, being costly, requiring skilled personnel, needing cold chain storage, and the associated side effects. This pilot study aimed to assess the usability, acceptability, and performance of the Maternal PPH Wrap, a first-aid device designed to control atonic PPH after childbirth. Forty subjects were recruited for the study. Twenty of these were women who sought maternity care at Kawempe National Referral Hospital (KNRH). The women wore the device for 120 minutes while their vitals were recorded every 20 minutes. The device’s acceptability and performance were evaluated on the women. The remaining twenty were licensed midwives working at KNRH. The device’s usability was assessed on all the midwives recruited for the pilot study using a usability questionnaire. There was a non-significant reduction in blood loss associated with the use of the Maternal PPH Wrap alongside the standard of care as opposed to the standard of care alone. This reduction in blood loss was detected between the$80^{\mathrm {th}}$and$120^{\mathrm {th}}$minute of the device application onto the mothers. The acceptability and usability scores from the study participants also scored favorably. The Maternal PPH Wrap demonstrated potential to control PPH and product satisfaction, and these results will support the device’s redesign leading into a phase I clinical trial.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".