MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402816239 · doi:10.1080/16549716.2024.2403972

‘ <i>I am happy to be listened to’</i> : co-creation of a simple tool to measure women’s experiences of respectful maternity care in urban Tanzania

2024· article· en· W4402816239 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Brenda Sequeira Dmello, Natasha Housseine, Hussein Kidanto, Nanna Maaløe, Jos van Roosmalen, Dan Wolf Meyrowitsch, Thomas van den Akker, Zainab Muniro, Evance Polin, Nuswe Ambokile, Charles Festo, Jane Brandt Sørensen, David Sando

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Action · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Foreign AffairsUNICEFGlobal Affairs CanadaUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsTanzaniaMeasure (data warehouse)Simple (philosophy)Maternity carePsychologyNursingMedicineSociologyHealth careEconomic growthSocioeconomicsComputer scienceEconomicsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rights-based Respectful Maternity Care (RMC) is crucial for quality of care and improved birth outcomes, yet RMC measurements are rarely included in facility improvement initiatives. We aimed to (i) co-create a routine RMC measurement tool (RMC-T) for congested maternity units in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and (ii) assess the RMC-T's acceptability among women and healthcare stakeholders. METHOD: We employed a participatory approach utilizing multiple mixed methods. This included a scoping review, stakeholder engagement involving postnatal women, healthcare providers, health leadership, and global researchers through interviews, focus groups, and two surveys involving 201 and 838 postnatal women. Cronbach's alpha and factor analysis were conducted for validation using Stata 15. Theories of social practice and Thematic Framework of Acceptability guided the assessment of stakeholder priorities and tool acceptability. RESULTS: The multi-phased iterative co-creation process produced the 25-question RMC-T that measures satisfaction, communication, mistreatment (including physical, verbal, and sexual abuse; neglect; discrimination; lack of privacy; unconsented care; post-birth clean-up; informal payments; and denial of care), supportive care (such as food intake and mobility), birth companionship, post-procedure pain relief, bed-sharing, and newborn respect. The pragmatic validation process prioritized stakeholder feedback over strict statistics, lowering Cronbach's alpha from 0.70 in version 1 to 0.57 for the RMC-T. Women valued the opportunity to share their experiences. CONCLUSIONS: The RMC-T is contextualized, validated, and acceptable for measuring women's experiences of RMC. Routine use in facility-based quality improvement initiatives, along with targeted actions to address gaps, will advance rights-based RMC. Further validation and community-based studies are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health ActionSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207