Realist evaluation of maternity waiting home intervention models in Inhambane, Mozambique: protocol for a comparative embedded case study, the Mozambique-Canada Maternal Health Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This is a study protocol that tests and refines realist theories regarding the uptake and scale-up of the linked maternity waiting home (hereafter MWH) and facility birth intervention in the Mozambican context. The theories were developed through a realist review of MWH-facility birth literature from low-income and middle-income countries. The aim of the proposed study is to contribute to a contextually refined understanding of the causal chains underlying MWH-facility birth adoption by pregnant women and their families, communities, the health system and donors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The overarching methodology is mixed-methods realist evaluation. The study will adopt a comparative embedded case study design comparing three new masonry MWHs built by the Mozambique-Canada Maternal Health Project in Inhambane province with three older MWHs selected based on variation in the built environment. Baseline data on participating MWH-facility birth interventions will be collected through observations, reviews of routine data and analysis of statistics and reports from provincial and district health authorities and the Mozambique-Canada Maternal Health project. Realist interviews will be conducted with MWH users and non-users, companions of MWH users and non-users, partners of MWH users and non-users, and stakeholders within the health system and the non-governmental organisation sector. Realist focus groups will be used to collect data from community-level implementers. The analysis will be retroductive and use the context-mechanism-outcome configuration heuristic tool to represent generative causation. We will analyse data from intervention and comparator MWHs independently and compare the resulting refined programme theories. Data analysis will be done in NVivo 12. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for the project has been obtained from the Mozambique National Bioethics Committee (CNBS-Comité Nacional de Bioética para a Saúde) and the University of Saskatchewan Bioethical Research Ethics Board. The evaluation will adhere to the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects and the African adaptation of evaluation ethics and principles. Evaluation results will be disseminated to stakeholders' practice audiences through peer-reviewed publications, plain-language briefs, theory validation/feedback meetings and conference presentations.
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 | 0.075 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.005 |
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".