[Household behaviour regarding health and drug consumption in Cameroon].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To begin a renewal of national health policy in Cameroon, a steering committee from the Cameroon Ministry of Health and its partners sought to analyze health demand through a national population survey and supply capacity through a national survey of retail drug stores. A survey of healthcare consumers was also conducted. The present publication describes the results of the population survey. It measured perceived, rather than objective (diagnosed), morbidity. The morbidity ratio, defined as the proportion of persons who reported having been ill during the reference period, two weeks before the survey, was measured at 23% and varied with demographic, social, and economic characteristics such as age, sex, poverty, the sex and educational level of the head of the household, and place of residence (urban or rural). We asked about six types of response to illness: modern consultation, traditional consultation, modern self-medication, traditional self-medication, expectant management, and prayer. The approaches of individual therapeutic itineraries fluctuated for each subject, depending first on financial capacity, second on geographic accessibility, and third on socio-cultural perception of the illness, which governed in particular choice of a modern or traditional approach. Thus, less than a quarter of all subjects initially chose consultation in a health care centre, which accounted for only 31% of all approaches, and 37% of the effective health responses (excluding treatment abstention). Half, however, chose it as a second step, and 40% as a third. Globally, 56% of those who reported illness did not seek a modern consultation during this illness, and 23% of those who took three separate steps for the same illness never sought a modern consultation. Half of all household health expenditures were for medication, and this proportion was highest in the poorest population. In 2002, the population spent 366 billion CFA Francs on health care: 170 billion for drugs, 75 billion for medical examinations, 53 billion for hospitalization, 30 billion for consultations; and 22 billion for transportation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".