Between Compassion and Controversy: Providers and Patients Navigating the Post-Abortion Care Labyrinth in Nongr-Massom Health District, Burkina Faso
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unsafe abortion remains a major contributor to maternal mortality, particularly in low-resource settings. In Burkina Faso, post-abortion care (PAC) was integrated into national health policy between 1997 and 1998, yet service uptake remains low. This qualitative study explores perceptions of PAC quality among healthcare providers and clients in the Nongr-Massom health district. We conducted 21 in-depth interviews—11 with providers and 10 with PAC recipients—and analyzed transcripts using thematic analysis. Most clients were aged 20–29, with half lacking formal education; providers were aged 40–49 and held higher education credentials. Providers described PAC delivery as structured and protocol-driven but acknowledged systemic limitations and the need for improvement. Clients reported mixed experiences, ranging from poor reception and confidentiality concerns to compassionate care and emotional support. Although some initially expressed dissatisfaction, many later emphasized provider empathy and encouragement during treatment. Findings reveal persistent barriers to high-quality PAC despite governmental efforts. While providers recognize their critical role, gaps in service delivery and client trust remain. Addressing these challenges is essential to improving maternal health outcomes and reducing unintended pregnancies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it