Street‐level workers’ criteria for identifying indigents to be exempted from user fees in Burkina Faso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Universal healthcare coverage cannot be achieved in Africa as long as the indigent, the poorest, are unable to access healthcare systems. This study was carried out in Burkina Faso to obtain street-level workers' perspectives on what criteria should be used to select indigents to be exempted from user fees. METHODS: Two group consensus techniques were used (Delphi and Concept Mapping). The participants were nurses (CM; n = 24), midwives (CM; n = 23) from a rural district and Social Action agents (CM; n = 31) and healthcare workers (Delphi n = 23) in training at two national schools. RESULTS: Altogether, 446 criteria were proposed. The nurses put forward criteria related to being ill without support and being a victim of society. The midwives focused more on the disabled poor and those who were ill and unsupported. The healthcare workers in training mentioned disabled persons and the elderly with no family support. The Social Action agents spoke about vulnerability related to illness or disability and the fact of being excluded or being a disaster victim. CONCLUSIONS: These criteria proposed by street-level workers add to other studies conducted in Burkina Faso and should help the State to improve indigents' access to care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".