Effect of implementing educational program on pregnant women's knowledge, and practice regarding cervical cerclage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cervical cerclage is the principal treatment for women with a history of cervical insufficiency. In general, there are three major cerclage types: prophylactic, therapeutic, and emergency. Aim of the study: To evaluate the effect of implementing an educational program on pregnant women's knowledge and practice regarding cervical cerclage.Research design: Quasi-experimental design was used. Setting: The study was conducted in outpatient departments at Minia university hospital for maternity and child health. Subjects: A purposive sample of one-hundred pregnant women who had undertaken cervical cerclage were recruited and divided equally into study and control groups using a simple random sample. Tools of data collection: Three tools were used: 1- A structured Interviewing Questionnaire, 2- knowledge Assessment, and 3- Assessment tool for practices. Results: The current study reveals; that most of the study and control groups respectively had poor knowledge regarding cervical cerclage pre-program, decreased post-program, and the minority of study and control groups had a satisfactory level of practice regarding cervical cerclage procedure pre-program, compared to most and minority of study and control groups had a satisfactory level of practice regarding cervical cerclage procedure post-program, respectively. Conclusion & Recommendation: Implementing the educational program effectively and significantly improved pregnant women's knowledge and practice regarding cervical cerclage. Women undergoing cervical cerclage should be provided with educational programming as part of their standard hospital 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".