The Magnitude and Determinants of Participation of Male Partners in Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness in Two Selected Districts of Mwanza Region, Northwest Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Limited involvement of male partners in Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) is one among other factors behind high maternal mortality rate in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC). This study aimed at establishing the magnitude and determinants of male partners’ participation in BPCR in two selected districts in Mwanza region, Northwestern Tanzania. Methods In August 2019, a community based cross-sectional study was conducted in Magu and Misungwi districts in Mwanza region. Data were collected from 345 male respondents whose partners had given birth in the one year before the study. An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect information on various components of BPCR. Univariate and multivariate analysis of factors associated with male partners’ participation in BPCR were conducted. Results More than three quarters of male partners adequately participated in BPCR (76%) and the findings were comparable between the two study areas (χ²=0.01; p=0.979). The odds of male participation in BPCR were nine times higher among the married men (aOR =9.06; 95% CI: 4.12-19.96; p<0.001) as compared to those cohabiting and eight times likely among those who were aware of BPCR as a general term (aOR = 8.15; 95% CI: 3.73-17.77; p<0.001). Respondents who discussed with their female partners regarding BPCR had four times higher odds of participating (aOR=4.10; 95% CI: 1.79-9.36; p<0.001) than those who never had conversation. Respondents whose female partners delivered in health facility had seven times higher odds of participating (aOR = 7.60; 95% CI: 2.06-28.04; p=0.002) than those delivered at home. Conclusion The level of participation on BPCR among male partners was high and comparable between the two study areas. Married couple, awareness, discussion with female partners and health facility delivery predicted male participation in BPCR. Therefore, intervention targeting at knowledge and awareness improvement as well as couple discussion empowerment could markedly expand male participation in BPCR.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".