Traditional remedies in children around eastern cape, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To gauge the views of mothers and other caregivers on the use of traditional remedies in the community. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: Five health centres affiliated to the UNITRA, Faculty of Health Sciences. METHODS: Medical students administered a questionnaire to mothers and other caregivers. Areas covered included how commonly traditional remedies are used, experience with traditional remedies in children, reasons for use, how administered, and problems encountered. RESULTS: There were 103 respondents, 7.8% rated use of traditional remedies non-existent, 20.4% rated it as rare and the rest said it was common. 57.3% of the respondents had used these remedies in their children, and 83.1% of them said they would use them again. Only 20.7% of respondents reported problems with these remedies, including diarrhoea, vomiting, fever and death. The preparations used were known by only 40.7% of respondents. The remedies were administered by the mother and grandmother in 82.8% of cases; and were mainly given orally, by enema or by scarification. The amount administered varied from spoonful(s) up to 2.5 l. Children of all ages were given traditional remedies, usually for diarrhoea, fevers and constipation, or as prophylactics. These remedies were used because they are effective, available and safe, or due to customary beliefs and pressure from others. CONCLUSION: The use of traditional remedies in children is common in communities around Umtata. There is need to study the composition and activity profiles of commonly used preparations so as to develop appropriate management protocols in case of toxicity.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".