Comparison of Domiciliary and Institutional Delivery-care Practices in\nRural Rajasthan, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective cross-sectional survey was conducted to assess key\npractices and costs relating to home- and institutional delivery care\nin rural Rajasthan, India. One block from each of two sample districts\nwas covered (estimated population–279,132). Field investigators\nlisted women who had delivered in the past three months and contacted\nthem for structured case interview. In total, 1,947 (96%) of 2,031\nlisted women were successfully interviewed. An average of 2.4 and 1.7\ncare providers attended each home- and institutional delivery\nrespectively. While 34% of the women delivered in health facilities,\nmodern care providers attended half of all the deliveries.\nIntramuscular injections, intravenous drips, and abdominal fundal\npressure were widely used for hastening delivery in both homes and\nfacilities while post-delivery injections for active management of the\nthird stage were administered to a minority of women in both the\nvenues. Most women were discharged prematurely after institutional\ndelivery, especially by smaller health facilities. The cost of\naccessing home-delivery care was Rs 379 (US$ 8) while the mean costs in\nfacilities for elective, difficult vaginal deliveries and for caesarean\nsections were Rs 1,336 (US$ 30), Rs 2,419 (US$ 54), and Rs 11,146 (US$\n248) respectively. Most families took loans at high interest rates to\nmeet these costs. It is concluded that widespread irrational practices\nby a range of care providers in both homes and facilities can adversely\naffect women and newborns while inadequate observance of beneficial\npractices and high costs are likely to reduce the benefits of\ninstitutional delivery, especially for the poor. Government health\nagencies need to strengthen regulation of delivery care and,\nespecially, monitor perinatal outcomes. Family preference for hastening\ndelivery and early discharge also require educational efforts.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".