Birth preparedness and complication readiness among pregnant women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Birth preparedness and complication preparedness (BPACR) is a key component of globally accepted safe motherhood programs, which helps ensure women to reach professional delivery care when labor begins and to reduce delays that occur when mothers in labor experience obstetric complications. Objective: This study was conducted to assess practice and factors associated with BPACR among pregnant women in Aleta Wondo district in Sidama Zone, South Ethiopia. Methods: A community based cross sectional study was conducted in 2007, on a sample of 812 pregnant women. Data were collected using pre-tested and structured questionnaire. The collected data were analyzed by SPSS for windows version 12.0.1. The women were asked whether they followed the desired five steps while pregnant: identified a trained birth attendant, identified a health facility, arranged for transport, identified blood donor and saved money for emergency. Taking at least two steps was considered being well-prepared. Results: Among 743 pregnant women only a quarter (20.5%) of pregnant women identified skilled provider. Only 8.1% identified health facility for delivery and/or for obstetric emergencies. Preparedness for transportation was found to be very low (7.7%). Considerable (34.5%) number of families saved money for incurred costs of delivery and emergency if needed. Only few (2.3%) identified potential blood donor in case of emergency. Majority (87.9%) of the respondents reported that they intended to deliver at home, and only 60(8%) planned to deliver at health facilities. Overall only 17 % of pregnant women were well prepared. The adjusted multivariate model showed that significant predictors for being well-prepared were maternal availing of antenatal services (OR = 1.91 95 % CI; 1.21–3.01) and being pregnant for the first time (OR = 6.82,
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".