MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313640522 · doi:10.1017/s0021932022000475

Birth preparedness and complication readiness: Evaluating the “know-do” gap among women receiving antenatal care in Benin City, Nigeria

2023· article· en· W4313640522 on OpenAlex
Victor Ohenhen, Samson Aiwobeuke Oshomoh, Ejovi Akpojaro, Egbe Enobakhare, Christopher Ovenseri, Ejemai Eboreime

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biosocial Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOddsLogistic regressionOdds ratioFamily medicineOrdered logitPreparednessCross-sectional studyOrdinal regressionHealth careDeveloping countryDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across several African countries, birth preparedness and complication readiness (BPACR) among pregnant women is poor. The practice of BPACR, though improving in recent years, is not commensurate with the knowledge available to pregnant women. Maternal health indices remain sub-optimal. This study evaluates the determinants of this "know-do' gap among women receiving antenatal care at a secondary health facility in Benin City, Nigeria. A cross-sectional study involving 427 pregnant women was conducted between October and December 2020 using a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire. The prevalence of knowledge and practice were described, and the determinants of BPACR practice evaluated using bivariable (chi-square) analysis and multivariable ordinal logistic regression with post-estimation predictive margins analysis. About 77% of respondents had good birth preparedness practice. Multivariable regression revealed that respondents with poor knowledge and moderate knowledge of components of BPACR had statistically significant lower odds (OR:0.05 (95% CI: 0.02-0.13) and 0.10 (95% CI: 0.03-0.30) times, respectively) for greater practice of BPACR when compared to those with good knowledge. Respondents with poor knowledge of danger signs had statistically significant lower odds (OR: 0.08 (95% CI: 0.03-0.26) for greater practice of BPACR when compared to those with good knowledge. But predictive margins analyses demonstrates that knowledge, though critical to practice, is insufficient to optimize practice. The optimum number of danger signs women need to know to improve practice may be between eight to ten. Beyond this number, practice may not change significantly. Other predictors of BPACR practice include income level, parity, gravidity, and residential settings. The number of antenatal clinic visits had no statistically significant correlation with BPACR practice. Interventions to facilitate practice at the community level may be helpful to improve outcomes and bridge the know-do gap with respect to BPACR within the study context.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.334 · 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