Utilization of non-pneumatic anti-shock garment for treating obstetric hemorrhage and associated factors among obstetric care providers in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The non-pneumatic anti-shock garment (NASG) is a life-saving device that can help to avoid delays and prevent further complications in the case of obstetric hemorrhage. Although there are many fragmented primary studies on the NASG utilization in Ethiopia, the pooled utilization rate is unknown. In addition, a disagreement was observed among those studies while reporting the associated factors. Therefore, this study was intended to determine the pooled level of NASG utilization and its associated factors among obstetric care providers in Ethiopia. METHODS: A total of 51 studies were retrieved from PubMed, Google Scholar, the African Journal of Online, direct open-access journals, and Ethiopian universities' institutional repositories. This study was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The quality of studies was evaluated using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment tool. The data were extracted by two authors independently using Microsoft Excel and analyzed by Stata version 11. A random-effects model was applied to calculate the pooled level of NASG utilization and its associated factors. The PROSPERO registration number for the review is CRD42023414043. RESULT: A total of 8 studies comprising 2,575 study participants were involved in this meta-analysis. The pooled utilization rate of NASG was found to be 39.56%. Having NASG training (pooled odds ratio (OR) = 3.99, 95%CI = 2.35, 6.77), good knowledge about NASG (OR = 2.92, 95%CI = 2.04, 4.17), a positive attitude towards NASG (OR = 3.17, 95%CI = 2.10, 4.79), and having ≥ 2 NASGs in the health facility (OR = 10.59, 95%CI = 6.59, 17.01) were significantly associated with NASG utilization. CONCLUSION: Utilization of NASG for the treatment of obstetric hemorrhage was low in Ethiopia. To increase its utilization, Ministry of Health should improve the accessibility of NASG at each health facility and increase the Health professionals' knowledge and attitude through in-service and pre-service training.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".