MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011294221 · doi:10.2190/8prr-9qve-rquh-705u

Correct Preparation and Administration of Oral Rehydration Solution: Essential for Safe and Effective Home Treatment of Diarrhea in Indonesia

2004· article· en· W2011294221 on OpenAlexaff
Shannon E. MacDonald, Donna Moralejo, M. Kathleen Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Quarterly of Community Health Education · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiarrheaOral rehydration therapyDeveloping countryAdministration (probate law)Family medicineHealth careNursingEnvironmental healthPediatricsPopulationHealth servicesEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diarrhea-related dehydration is a leading cause of childhood death in developing countries such as Indonesia, despite being largely preventable and treatable through use of Oral Rehydration Solution (ORS). While the extent to which ORS is used in Indonesia has been explored in earlier studies, the issue of whether it is being used correctly has not been adequately investigated. The purpose of this study was to assess mothers' ORS preparation and administration practices and to determine their source of instruction for these practices. A structured questionnaire was administered orally to 100 mothers of children under the age of 5 years, in a rural village of West Java, Indonesia. Only 23.7% of mothers were found to have correctly prepared ORS, and none exhibited fully correct administration practices. Primary sources of instruction were health workers (62.9%), package instructions (23.7%), and family members or friends (12.4%). Resulting recommendations include education of health care workers, community health education programs, reallocation of health care resources, and revision of ORS packaging guidelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Quarterly of Community Health EducationSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207