Optimizing Availability and Appropriate Use of Assisted Vaginal Birth: Protocol for Generic Formative Research of an Implementation Preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assisted vaginal birth is a lifesaving procedure where health workers use special devices to expedite birth vaginally when some complications emerge, such as due to prolonged labor. When the use of assisted vaginal birth is possible and appropriate, it provides benefits over cesarean section. These benefits include shorter recovery, reduced hospital stays, lower risks of complications, cost savings, and greater likelihood of vaginal birth in future pregnancies. Despite these benefits, the use of assisted vaginal births has declined in recent years. Challenges remain on how to implement assisted vaginal birth effectively, equitably, and at scale in different health systems. Formative research is useful to understand local health system preparedness, acceptability, feasibility, and resource availability for designing and implementing health interventions. OBJECTIVE: We developed a generic formative research protocol that can be used to design and implement interventions to optimize use of assisted vaginal birth in any setting and context. METHODS: This formative research protocol is to be conducted in the setting where interventions to optimize assisted vaginal birth will be implemented. The formative research has three components: (1) document review, (2) readiness assessment, and (3) primary qualitative research. Document review will examine existing policy and guidelines, while readiness assessment will assess the service delivery context. The 2 components aim to identify potential barriers and facilitators to use of assisted vaginal birth. Primary qualitative research will involve women, families, community members, health workers, facility administrators, and policy makers. Interview questions are structured around potential interventions to optimize use of assisted vaginal birth. This protocol includes all the essential study instruments. RESULTS: This is a generic research protocol that can be used by any stakeholder aiming to optimize assisted vaginal birth in any setting. Serving as a preparatory guide, it provides a structured approach for planning and implementing evidence-based and context-specific strategies aligned with best practices in maternal health care. No data collection or analysis has been conducted to date. CONCLUSIONS: This generic protocol can serve as a guide in conducting formative research as intervention preparation to optimize use of assisted vaginal birth. The results can inform the design and implementation of appropriate interventions from the perspectives of important stakeholders. Therefore, we recommend that trialists, clinicians, researchers, administrators, and policy makers use this protocol before implementation to understand local context and incorporate perspectives of key stakeholders to promote equitable, high-quality, and women-centered care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/69808.
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 | 0.132 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.018 |
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".