Analysis of the quality of seasonal malaria chemoprevention provided by community health Workers in Boulsa health district, Burkina Faso
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Since 2014, the Burkina Faso government has made Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention (SMC) a priority in its strategic plan to fight against malaria among children aged from 3 to 59 months. Very few studies have examined the care provided by community health workers in the framework of this strategy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of quality of care provided by the latter. METHODS: This was a mixed study. The quantitative component consisted of a non-participant observation of community health workers during the administration of care. The qualitative component consisted of one-on-one interviews with community health workers, child caregivers and head nurses. Five dimensions (organizational accessibility, interpersonal relationship, technical competence, safety of care and satisfaction of child caregivers) adapted from the Donabedian quality of care model were used to assess the quality level of care. The Corlien et al. Health Systems Research Program Implementation Scale was used to establish quality scores for each of the five dimensions. The study sites were the health centers located in the administrative centers of the 4 communes of the health district of Boulsa. The data were collected during the first cycle of the 2017 SMC campaign. RESULTS: A total of 14 active pairs (28 CHWs) were observed and 40 in-depth interviews with community health workers, Head nurses in duty and community leaders were conducted. The results show that community health workers worked in pairs. They had all received SMC training and possessed equipment to do their job. The dimensions of organizational accessibility and satisfaction of the caregivers were rated as good. The dimensions of interpersonal relationship and technical competence were judged to be of an acceptable score. Safety of care was judged to be of a low-level score. The overall quality of care was considered acceptable. CONCLUSION: The results of this study have shown that despite the difficulties faced by community health workers, they manage to deliver acceptable quality of care. Their use would be an asset for SMC in particular and for the health system in general.
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 | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| 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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 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 ».