Effect of Educational Status on Underweight among Lactating Women in Ethiopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to examine the relationship between educational status and underweight among lactating women in Ethiopia. The studies conducted before indicate in consistence association between educational status and underweight among lactating women in Ethiopia. We include 7 studies in different regions of Ethiopia. Materials and Methods: The databases, including PubMed, Google scholar were systematically searched. From 2015 to 2020 data were extracted and tabulated by two reviewers using a table containing the following variables: author, title, date of publication, city(s)/ Region / study design, sample size, percentage women with informal education and percentage women with formal education and underweight. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cross-sectional studies quality assessment tool was adapted and used to assess the quality of each study. The combined adjusted Odds ratios (OR)) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effect model. Results: In the current meta-analysis seven observational studies involving 3113 lactating women’s were used to estimate the pooled effect size of underweight. The result of 7 included studies indicated that the pooled odd ratio of underweight among women with informal education compared with women with formal education in Ethiopia was 2.47 (95% CI: 1.69, 3.83). Publication bias for estimating the odd ratio of underweight for women with informal education compared to women with formal education (p = 0.881) and (p = 0.649) respectively. Heterogeneity was statistically significant (I2=76% Q=25.06; P<0•001). From 54.35% (1692) women who have informal education 16.35% (509) women have underweight. The overall proportion of underweight was 16.35% and 6.58% for those having informal education and formal education respectively. Conclusions: There was evidence that lactating mothers with informal education are more likely to experience underweight. Based on our findings, we strongly recommended that the health education activities about nutrition should be targeted among lactating women with informal education through health extension workers.
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".