Fatherhood and men’s participation in antenatal care in rural sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Men's participation is imperative for improving antenatal care (ANC) access and mother and child health outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Research looking at improving men's participation in ANC often focuses on their instrumental and psychosocial roles and on biomedical ANC systems. There is limited understanding of how context-specific cultural experiences of fatherhood influence men's participation in ANC within broader communal support networks and across different ANC systems in SSA. Against this background, and to understand how local communities in SSA conceive men's participation in ANC, a scoping review will be undertaken to synthesise existing literature around local cultural experiences of fatherhood and men's participation in ANC in rural settings in SSA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The classical scoping review methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley will be used to conduct the scoping review described above. Empirical studies published between 1 January 2000 and 31 August 2024 will be systematically searched for in key online databases (eg, PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, African Index Medicus, African Journals Online) and grey literature (eg, reports from key organisations like UNICEF and the WHO). Literature reviews, personal opinion articles and theoretical or conceptual articles that do not systematically analyse data, and non-English texts, will be excluded. Data will be extracted from the included texts in the form of study characteristics, which will be analysed using descriptive statistics, and key issues to be analysed thematically. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approvals are needed for this scoping review since data will be abstracted from already-published literature and no additional data will be collected. The findings will be shared with policymakers, practitioners, researchers, students and local communities through peer-reviewed journal publication(s), conference presentations, public lectures and policy-focused stakeholder and community meetings in and outside SSA.
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 | 0.111 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.010 |
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".