Débats et défis autour de la gratuité des soins en Afrique: «retour vers le futur»?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In its 2008 annual report, WHO affirmed the importance of resisting the temptation to depend on direct payment for primary health care. Members of the WHO committee on the social determinants of health as well as of those at the conference on primary health care in Ouagadougou in 2008 reaffirmed the need to make access to health care systems more equitable. Several decades after imposition of direct payment began, convincing data clearly demonstrate its harmful effects on the basic fairness of access to care. Accordingly, the current debate in the field of financial support for health involves the elimination of payments. More precisely, we can finally say that this is a debate about a return to the free care that existed before the widespread implementation of "cost recovery" systems. Here we want to review these discussions and prepare the ground for a debate on possible effective strategies for making health care systems more equitable from the perspective of universal coverage. We will thus note that analyses today must certainly focus more on how to eliminate direct payments than on the reasons to do so, already amply demonstrated. The international community must now undertake to support governments that want to move in this direction and ensure that the process is thoroughly documented so that it can also produce useful knowledge for the formulation of fair public policies.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".