Factors Influencing the Implementation of Infant Warming Devices Among Healthcare Workers in Malawian Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. Preterm infants are at risk of hypothermia. This study described the available infant warming devices (IWDs) and explored the barriers and facilitators to their implementation in neonates in Malawi. Methods. A qualitative descriptive study was conducted among 19 health care workers in Malawi from January to March 2020. All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and managed using NVivo and analyzed using a thematic approach. Results. The warming devices included radiant warmers, Blantyre hot-cots, wall-mounted heaters, portable warmers, and incubators. Inadequate equipment and infrastructure and gaps in staff knowledge and capacity were reported as the main challenges to optimal IWD implementation. Caregiver acceptance was described as the main facilitator. Strategies to optimize implementation of IWD included continuous practical training and adequate availability of equipment and spare parts. Conclusion. Implementation of warming devices for the management of neonatal hypothermia is effective when there are adequate human and material resources.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".