IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pdig00/0000707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance evaluation and comparative analysis of different machine learning algorithms in predicting postnatal care utilization: Evidence from the ethiopian demographic and health survey 2016

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Niguse Mamo
  • Agmasie Damtew Walle
  • Eden Ketema Woldekidan
  • Jibril Bashir Adem
  • Yosef Haile Gebremariam
  • Meron Asmamaw Alemayehu
  • Ermias Bekele Enyew
  • Shimels Derso Kebede

Abstract

Postnatal care refers to the support provided to mothers and their newborns immediately after childbirth and during the first six weeks of life, a period when most maternal and neonatal deaths occur. In the 30 countries studied, nearly 40 percent of women did not receive a postpartum care check-up. This research aims to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of machine learning algorithms in predicting postnatal care utilization in Ethiopia and to identify the key factors involved. The study employs machine learning techniques to analyse secondary data from the 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey. It aims to predict postnatal care utilization and identify key predictors via Python software, applying fifteen machine-learning algorithms to a sample of 7,193 women. Feature importance techniques were used to select the top predictors. The models’ effectiveness was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, precision, accuracy, and area under the curve. Among the four experiments, tenfold cross-validation with balancing using Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique was outperformed. From fifteen models, the MLP Classifier (f1 score = 0.9548, AUC = 0.99), Random Forest Classifier (f1 score = 0.9543, AUC = 0.98), and Bagging Classifier (f1 score = 0.9498, AUC = 0.98) performed excellently, with a strong ability to differentiate between classes. The Region, residence, maternal education, religion, wealth index, health insurance status, and place of delivery are identified as contributing factors that predict postnatal care utilization. This study assessed machine learning models for forecasting postnatal care usage. Ten-fold cross-validation with Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique produced the best results, emphasizing the significance of addressing class imbalance in healthcare datasets. This approach enhances the accuracy and dependability of predictive models. Key findings reveal regional and socioeconomic factors influencing PNC utilization, which can guide targeted initiatives to improve postnatal care utilization and ultimately enhance maternal and child health.Author summary: The study indicated that, among the four experimental designs, tenfold cross-validation using the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) produced the best results. The MLP Classifier, Random Forest Classifier, and Bagging Classifier all performed well in predicting postnatal care (PNC) utilization. The region, residency, maternal education, religion, wealth index, health insurance status, and place of delivery were all significant predictors. The study emphasizes the necessity of correcting class imbalance in healthcare datasets to improve predictive model accuracy and reliability, as well as the impact of geographical and socioeconomic factors on PNC utilization.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Niguse Mamo & Agmasie Damtew Walle & Eden Ketema Woldekidan & Jibril Bashir Adem & Yosef Haile Gebremariam & Meron Asmamaw Alemayehu & Ermias Bekele Enyew & Shimels Derso Kebede, 2025. "Performance evaluation and comparative analysis of different machine learning algorithms in predicting postnatal care utilization: Evidence from the ethiopian demographic and health survey 2016," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(1), pages 1-25, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000707
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000707
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000707&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000707?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Takaya Saito & Marc Rehmsmeier, 2015. "The Precision-Recall Plot Is More Informative than the ROC Plot When Evaluating Binary Classifiers on Imbalanced Datasets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Andrius Vabalas & Emma Gowen & Ellen Poliakoff & Alexander J Casson, 2019. "Machine learning algorithm validation with a limited sample size," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-20, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nica-Avram, Georgiana & Harvey, John & Smith, Gavin & Smith, Andrew & Goulding, James, 2021. "Identifying food insecurity in food sharing networks via machine learning," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 469-484.
    2. Li-Dunn Chen & Michael A Caprio & Devin M Chen & Andrew J Kouba & Carrie K Kouba, 2024. "Enhancing predictive performance for spectroscopic studies in wildlife science through a multi-model approach: A case study for species classification of live amphibians," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(2), pages 1-24, February.
    3. Ephrem Habyarimana & Faheem S Baloch, 2021. "Machine learning models based on remote and proximal sensing as potential methods for in-season biomass yields prediction in commercial sorghum fields," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-23, March.
    4. Christopher J Greenwood & George J Youssef & Primrose Letcher & Jacqui A Macdonald & Lauryn J Hagg & Ann Sanson & Jenn Mcintosh & Delyse M Hutchinson & John W Toumbourou & Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz &, 2020. "A comparison of penalised regression methods for informing the selection of predictive markers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    5. Jie-Huei Wang & Cheng-Yu Liu & You-Ruei Min & Zih-Han Wu & Po-Lin Hou, 2024. "Cancer Diagnosis by Gene-Environment Interactions via Combination of SMOTE-Tomek and Overlapped Group Screening Approaches with Application to Imbalanced TCGA Clinical and Genomic Data," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-24, July.
    6. Le, Hong Hanh & Viviani, Jean-Laurent, 2018. "Predicting bank failure: An improvement by implementing a machine-learning approach to classical financial ratios," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 16-25.
    7. João Chang Junior & Fábio Binuesa & Luiz Fernando Caneo & Aida Luiza Ribeiro Turquetto & Elisandra Cristina Trevisan Calvo Arita & Aline Cristina Barbosa & Alfredo Manoel da Silva Fernandes & Evelinda, 2020. "Improving preoperative risk-of-death prediction in surgery congenital heart defects using artificial intelligence model: A pilot study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-21, September.
    8. Arthur De Sá Ferreira & Ney Meziat-Filho & Ana Paula Antunes Ferreira, 2021. "Double threshold receiver operating characteristic plot for three-modal continuous predictors," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 2231-2245, September.
    9. Leandro C. Hermida & E. Michael Gertz & Eytan Ruppin, 2022. "Predicting cancer prognosis and drug response from the tumor microbiome," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    10. Jonathan C. M. Wan & Dennis Stephens & Lingqi Luo & James R. White & Caitlin M. Stewart & Benoît Rousseau & Dana W. Y. Tsui & Luis A. Diaz, 2022. "Genome-wide mutational signatures in low-coverage whole genome sequencing of cell-free DNA," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    11. Fan, Xudong & Wang, Xiaowei & Zhang, Xijin & ASCE Xiong (Bill) Yu, P.E.F., 2022. "Machine learning based water pipe failure prediction: The effects of engineering, geology, climate and socio-economic factors," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    12. Zhang, Han, 2021. "How Using Machine Learning Classification as a Variable in Regression Leads to Attenuation Bias and What to Do About It," SocArXiv 453jk, Center for Open Science.
    13. Steffen Steinert & Verena Ruf & David Dzsotjan & Nicolas Großmann & Albrecht Schmidt & Jochen Kuhn & Stefan Küchemann, 2024. "A refined approach for evaluating small datasets via binary classification using machine learning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-21, May.
    14. Masabho P Milali & Samson S Kiware & Nicodem J Govella & Fredros Okumu & Naveen Bansal & Serdar Bozdag & Jacques D Charlwood & Marta F Maia & Sheila B Ogoma & Floyd E Dowell & George F Corliss & Maggy, 2020. "An autoencoder and artificial neural network-based method to estimate parity status of wild mosquitoes from near-infrared spectra," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-16, June.
    15. Daniel R Jeske, 2018. "Metrics Used When Evaluating the Performance of Statistical Classifiers," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 8(1), pages 7-9, August.
    16. Juliet Chebet Moso & Stéphane Cormier & Cyril de Runz & Hacène Fouchal & John Mwangi Wandeto, 2021. "Anomaly Detection on Data Streams for Smart Agriculture," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, November.
    17. Kajal Lahiri & Cheng Yang, 2023. "ROC and PRC Approaches to Evaluate Recession Forecasts," Journal of Business Cycle Research, Springer;Centre for International Research on Economic Tendency Surveys (CIRET), vol. 19(2), pages 119-148, September.
    18. Tzu-Hsuan Lin & Jehn-Ruey Jiang, 2021. "Credit Card Fraud Detection with Autoencoder and Probabilistic Random Forest," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(21), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Robert A. Blair & Nicholas Sambanis, 2021. "Is Theory Useful for Conflict Prediction? A Response to Beger, Morgan, and Ward," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(7-8), pages 1427-1453, August.
    20. Mieke Deschepper & Willem Waegeman & Dirk Vogelaers & Kristof Eeckloo, 2020. "Using structured pathology data to predict hospital-wide mortality at admission," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-11, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000707. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.