Geographic information system for improving maternal and newborn health: recommendations for policy and programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This correspondence argues and offers recommendations for how Geographic Information System (GIS) applied to maternal and newborn health data could potentially be used as part of the broader efforts for ending preventable maternal and newborn mortality. These recommendations were generated from a technical consultation on reporting and mapping maternal deaths that was held in Washington, DC from January 12 to 13, 2015 and hosted by the United States Agency for International Development's (USAID) global Maternal and Child Survival Program (MCSP). Approximately 72 participants from over 25 global health organizations, government agencies, donors, universities, and other groups participated in the meeting.The meeting placed emphases on how improved use of mapping could contribute to the post-2015 United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), agenda in general and to contribute to better maternal and neonatal health outcomes in particular. Researchers and policy makers have been calling for more equitable improvement in Maternal and Newborn Health (MNH), specifically addressing hard-to-reach populations at sub-national levels. Data visualization using mapping and geospatial analyses play a significant role in addressing the emerging need for improved spatial investigation at subnational scale. This correspondence identifies key challenges and recommendations so GIS may be better applied to maternal health programs in resource poor settings. The challenges and recommendations are broadly grouped into three categories: ancillary geospatial and MNH data sources, technical and human resources needs and community participation.
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 | 0.041 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.012 |
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".