MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4414003265 · doi:10.1093/bjs/znaf173

Task sharing in elective inguinal hernia surgery in Ghana: a workforce model comparing surgeons and physicians

2025· article· en· W4414003265 sur OpenAlexaff
Mwayi Kachapila, Stephen Tabiri, Mark Monahan, Francis Abantanga, Anita Eseenam Agbeko, Fareeda Agyei, Aneel Bhangu, Dion Morton, Virginia Ledda, Raymond Oppong

Notice bibliographique

RevueBritish journal of surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDiversity and Career in Medicine
Établissements canadiensCentre for Global Health Research
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute for Health and Care Research
Mots-clésMedicineInguinal herniaWorkforceTask (project management)General surgeryTask forceInguinal hernia surgeryHerniaMEDLINESurgeryManagement

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Over one million inguinal hernias were untreated in Ghana between 2012 and 2022 due to a shortage of surgeons and a lack of surgical care close to patients’ communities1,2. Task sharing is a process whereby specific roles are moved from one cadre of the workforce to another; however, both cadres provide the service to maximize population benefits. This model has shown potential for expanding access to safe surgical care in low-resource settings3. Task sharing between surgeons and non-surgeon physicians for inguinal hernia repair is being explored in Ghana to reduce unmet need2,4. An RCT is soon to be launched across 18 district hospitals in Ghana to assess the safety and clinical impact of this change in practice. In anticipation of this study, a decision-analytic model was built using published data and informed by site visits to five district hospitals. A healthcare provider perspective was adopted, and costs were estimated using a top-down approach. It was assumed that non-surgeon physicians would conduct hernia repairs for up to six years after completion of training, and anticipated volume was estimated from the data available. The cost of a hernia repair was taken from a published study comparing hernia repair undertaken by non-surgeon physicians and surgeons5. Resources for training one surgeon were calculated to equate to the resources for training 12 non-surgeon physicians at simple hernia repair (both for time and cost). The analysis estimated the cumulative number of hernia repairs performed over time by 12 non-surgeon physicians compared with one surgeon, alongside the costs of the surgery performed. The reported costs include the average cost of surgical training (€14 720), the average cost of training non-surgeon physicians (€1 225), the cost of hernia repair, and cost of recurrence and reoperation. After 6 years of repairing hernias the 12 non-surgeon physicians performed 4625 hernia repairs at a cost of €624 543(Euros), compared with 784 hernia repairs performed by a surgeon at a cost of € 109,921. As such, the non-surgeon physicians performed 3841 more hernia repairs at an additional cost of € 514,622 (Fig. 1). The cost per hernia repair, inclusive of training, was comparable (non-surgeon physicians €135, surgeon €140). In a sensitivity analysis, even if the dropout rate of non-surgeon physicians reaches 100% between 3 and 6 years, the number of hernia repairs completed will still be almost 4-fold that achieved by the surgeon and the per-procedure costs remain comparable (Fig. 1). Hernia repairs performed by 12 non-surgeon physicians (NSPs) and a surgeon, and associated costs Expanding training for surgeons in Ghana cannot address the current unmet need for inguinal hernia repair; however, short- and medium-term access can be improved by training non-surgeon physicians with comparable procedure costs. Non-surgeon physicians are not a replacement for surgeons but can be cost-effective in meeting medium-term capacity needs for specific procedures in a task-sharing capacity. One limitation of this analysis is that it did not consider the productivity gains associated with increasing access to surgery. Expanding access to hernia repair will require more resources including operating theatres and consumables. The next step is to evaluate the clinical and patient benefits of such a development, and the impact this model may have beyond the borders of Ghana. This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery Grant (NIHR 16.136.79). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the, the National Institute for Health Research. Mwayi Kachapila (Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing-original draft, Writing—review & editing), Stephen Tabiri (Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing—review & editing), Mark Monahan (Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing), Francis Abantanga (Conceptualization, Writing—review & editing), Anita Agbeko (Writing—review & editing), Fareeda Agyei (Writing—review & editing), Aneel Bhangu (Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Resources, Writing—review & editing), Dion Morton (Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing), Tracy Roberts (Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing), Virginia Ledda (Writing—review & editing), Mike Ohene-Yeboah (Writing—review & editing), and Raymond Oppong (Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing) The authors declare no conflicts of interests. The data set used in this study is not publicly accessible but can be made available when a reasonable data request has been made to the authors.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,072
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,143

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,049
Tête enseignante GPT0,289
Écart entre enseignants0,240 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueBritish journal of surgeryMême sujetDiversity and Career in MedicineTravaux en français237 207