Beliefs and Practices During Antenatal and Postnatal Period Among the Host Communities in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bangladesh, one of the affected countries with refugee, faces the challenge to provide health care especially maternal care to the host communities. This paper presents maternal care related thoughts and practices in the host communities in Ukhia of Cox’s Bazar. We collected data using mixed method approach including a cross-sectional survey and semi-structure interviews. Using a probability sample, we selected mothers with infants (n=588) living in the host communities of Ukhia sub-district. We also conducted forty-two in-depth semi-structured interviews among the currently pregnant women who had also previously given births (n =21); and recently delivered women (n = 21). The survey found one quarter of the recently delivered women received at least four antenatal care visits and 28 percent women received at least one postnatal care visit. Seventy four percent of deliveries took place at home and 71 percent of the deliveries were assisted by untrained traditional birth attendants. The women mostly relied on their mother in law for information and support. Residents of the host community mainly use cheap, easily accessible informal sectors for seeking care. Cultural beliefs and practices also involved in this behavior, including home delivery without skilled assistance. There is demand of developing behavior change messages to change local resident’s attitude towards antenatal and postnatal care visits and encourage skilled attendance at delivery. Programs in the host communities should also consider interventions to improve social support for key influential persons in the community, particularly mother in law who serve as advisor and decision maker.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".