Motherhood and pregnancy loss in the African context: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Pregnancy is associated with a woman’s transition to motherhood; however, pregnancy-loss produces intrapersonal and sociocultural disruption, with existential implications and lowered self-esteem. Motherhood, being culture-sensitive, warrants understanding how societies view motherhood when there is pregnancy-loss , to facilitate socioculturally sensitive and supportive services for bereaved women and families. Despite feminist enlightenment, in some societies a woman is seen as “incomplete” until she has a child. In Africa, women who experience pregnancy losses, especially those with no living children, are denied motherhood recognition. Purpose To understand the extent and type of knowledge available on motherhood when there is pregnancy loss in the African context; identify themes from psycho-social, nursing, and midwifery perspectives; and to provide a map of available knowledge as well as gaps for future for future research. Review question What is the existing knowledge on motherhood recognition when pregnancy loss occurs in the African context? Eligible publications must be in English, it included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies, and exclude other languages, on animals, and epidemiological information. Methods A scoping review was conducted in line with the steps of Arksey and O’Malley, modeled by the Joana Briggs Institute’s Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. Results A descriptive Content analysis of seven articles reported that mothers want acknowledgment, also motherhood recognition diminishes at the level of the individual, society, and health-care-workers. Conclusion In pregnancy-loss, society must not strip bereaved mothers of the motherhood status of their status, to promote maternal mental health.
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 | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".