[Quality of disease management of sexually transmitted diseases: investigation of care in six countries in West Africa].
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: the objectives of this study were, in healthcare facilities in six countries in West Africa, to: (1) estimate the proportion of patients consulting for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) for whom an adequate case history was taken and who received an appropriate physical examination and effective treatement (prevention indicator PI6); (2) to determine the percentage of patients who were given advice on condom use and notification of sexual partners for STD treatment (prevention indicator PI7); (3) to determine the level of knowledge of healthcare workers concerning STD case management; and (4) to compare reported and observed behaviour regarding STD case management by healthcare workers. MATERIAL AND METHOD: this descriptive study was carried out in 240 health care facilities in six countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, and Senegal, using the WHO protocol for PI6 and PI7 indicators to evaluate the quality of management of urethral discharge and genital ulcers, as well as an extension of this protocol to evaluate STD syndromes specific to women, namely vaginal discharge and pelvic inflammatory disease. Healthcare workers were observed during STD consultations, and thereafter interviewed. Up to five observations per healthcare worker were carried out over a period of three days spent at each health care facility. Criteria for an adequate case history were inclusion of questions on the nature, time of initiation and duration of symptoms, and for physical examination, visualisation and examination of genital organs for discharge and lesions. Treatments prescribed were judged as effective when in conformity with national algorithms for syndromic STD management. The PI6 indicator was estimated as the proportion of cases where an adequate case history was taken, an appropriate physical examination carried out and effective treatment prescribed. The PI7 score corresponded to the percentage of patients who received advice on condom use and partner notification for treatment. In order to control for intra-healthcare-worker correlation, the SUUDAN software was used for the computation of 95% confidence intervals of the proportions, obtained from univariate analysis in EPI-INFO, and for the comparison of the PI6 and PI7 scores by country, sex, marital status and symptoms of the patient, as well as by level of qualification of the healthcare workers, using the khi2 test. RESULTS: overall, 613 observations and 504 interviews of 263 healthcare workers were carried out. The majority of STD patients were female (57.1%) and unmarried (53.0%). Healthcare workers were most frequently doctors (33.6%) and the most common complaint was vaginal discharge (42.2%). Intercountry variation was observed for all these variables. An adequate case history was taken in 84.6% of cases and an adequate physical examination carried out in 60.8% of cases. Healthcare workers gave a diagnosis in conformity with national syndromic STD management algorithms in 35.3% of cases, while effective treatment was given to 14.1% of patients. Patients were encouraged to use condoms in 19.5% of cases and to advise their partners to seek treatment in 50.8% of cases; this advice was given more frequently to men than to women. PI6 and PI7 scores were respectively 9.9% (95% CI: 6.9%; 12.9%) and 15.4% (95% CI: 11.4%; 19.2%). Healthcare workers' knowledge of effective STD treatment regimes was low. Practices reported during interviews with regard to STD patients were comparable to observed behaviour with regard to case history-taking and physical examination, but not for diagnosis and treatment nor for condom promotion or partner notification advice. CONCLUSION: the results of this study demonstrate the low quality of STD management in the six countries evaluated, which may be explained by the lack of availability of examination material, the inadequate knowledge of healthcare workers, as well as the infrequent promotion of STD prevention methods, particularly in women.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».