Government Sponsored Community-Based Health Extension Program Enhancing Contraceptive Provision in Southern Ethiopia: An Interpretive Phenomenological Exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Albeit the government efforts improving access to contraception through health extension programs in Ethiopia, gaps exhibited on experiences of the stakeholder about the basis on services provision. Therefore, perceptions about the enablers and rationale for contraceptive service were explored. Interpretative phenomenological design was employed to explore the lived experiences of stakeholders. Focus group discussions, individual in-depth interviews, and key informant interviews were employed for data collection. Data were analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis. The finding indicated that contraceptive service provision from the socio-economic perspectives was understood adequately, but the human rights-based rationale was shadowed. The contribution of the health extension program for contraceptive use has been remarkable. The improvement is attributed to the alignment of primary health care with the community organizations such as women development armies. The health extension program accelerated contraceptive service and given momentum for PHC. Women revealed encouraging involvement in the process of contraceptive service access and use. However, the bigger picture, and rationale for providing contraceptive services, the human rights approach, remained elusive at lower hierarchy. Hence, the study recommends that the disconnect in the broader premises of providing contraceptive services must be properly communicated across the stakeholders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".