A Multi-level Analysis on Implementation of Low-Cost IVF in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Case Study of Uganda.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Globally, infertility is a major reproductive disease that affects an estimated 186 million people worldwide. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the burden of infertility is considerably high, affecting one in every four couples of reproductive age. Furthermore, infertility in this context has severe psychosocial, emotional, economic and health consequences. Absence of affordable fertility services in Sub-Saharan Africa has been justified by overpopulation and limited resources, resulting in inequitable access to infertility treatment compared to developed countries. Therefore, low-cost IVF (LCIVF) initiatives have been developed to simplify IVF-related treatment, reduce costs, and improve access to treatment for individuals in low-resource contexts. However, there is a gap between the development of LCIVF initiatives and their implementation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Uganda is the first country in East and Central Africa to undergo implementation of LCIVF initiatives within its public health system at Mulago Women’s Hospital. \n \nMethods: This was an exploratory, qualitative, single, case study conducted at Mulago Women’s Hospital in Kampala, Uganda. The objective of this study was to explore how LCIVF initiatives have been implemented within the public health system of Uganda at the macro-, meso- and micro-level. Primary qualitative data was collected using semi-structured interviews, hospital observations informal conversations, and document review. Using purposive and snowball sampling, a total of twenty-three key informants were interviewed including government officials, clinicians (doctors, nurses, technicians), hospital management, implementers, patient advocacy representatives, private sector practitioners, international organizational representatives, educational institution, and professional medical associations. Sources of secondary data included government and non-government reports, hospital records, organizational briefs, and press outputs. Using a multi-level data analysis approach, this study undertook a hybrid inductive/deductive thematic analysis, with the deductive analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). \n \nFindings: Factors facilitating implementation included international recognition of infertility as a reproductive disease, strong political advocacy and oversight, patient needs & advocacy, government funding, inter-organizational collaboration, tension to change, competition in the private sector, intervention adaptability & trialability, relative priority, motivation &advocacy of fertility providers and specialist training. While barriers included scarcity of embryologists, intervention complexity, insufficient knowledge, evidence strength & quality of intervention, inadequate leadership engagement & hospital autonomy, poor public knowledge, limited engagement with traditional, cultural, and religious leaders, lack of salary incentives and concerns of revenue loss associated with low-cost options. \n \nResearch contributions: This study contributes to knowledge of factors salient to implementation of LCIVF initiatives in a Sub-Saharan context. Effective implementation of these initiatives requires (1) sustained political support and favourable policy & legislation, (2) public sensitization and engagement of traditional, cultural, and religious leaders (3) strengthening local innovation and capacity building of fertility health workers, in particular embryologists (4) sustained implementor leadership engagement and inter-organizational collaboration and (5) proven clinical evidence and utilization of LCIVF initiatives in innovator countries. It also adds to the literature on the applicability of the CFIR framework in explaining factors that influence successful implementation in developing countries and offer opportunities for comparisons across studies.
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 | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».