Density of Healthcare Providers and Patient Outcomes: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Multi-Site HIV Treatment Program in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between density of healthcare providers and patient outcomes using a large nationally representative cohort of patients receiving combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in Uganda. DESIGN: We obtained data from The AIDS Support Organization (TASO) in Uganda. Patients 18 years of age and older who initiated cART at TASO between 2004 and 2008 contributed to this analysis. The number of healthcare providers per 100 patients, the number of patients lost to follow-up per 100 person years and number of deaths per 100 person years were calculated. Spearman correlation was used to identify associations between patient loss to follow-up and mortality with the healthcare provider-patient ratios. RESULTS: We found no significant associations between the number of patients lost to follow-up and physicians (p = 0.45), nurses (p = 0.93), clinical officers (p = 0.80), field officers (p = 0.56), and healthcare providers overall (p = 0.83). Similarly, no significant associations were observed between mortality and physicians (p = 0.65), nurses (p = 0.49), clinical officers (p = 0.73), field officers (p = 0.78), and healthcare providers overall (p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Patient outcomes, as measured by loss to follow-up and mortality, were not significantly associated with the number of doctors, nurses, clinical officers, field officers, or healthcare providers overall. This may suggest that that other factors, such as the presence of volunteer patient supporters or broader political or socioeconomic influences, may be more closely associated with outcomes of care among patients on cART in Uganda.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".