Understanding the barriers to clubfoot treatment adherence in Uganda: A rapid ethnographic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Ponseti method has been demonstrated to be an effective, low-technology method of correcting congenital clubfoot. The purpose of this paper is to identify barriers to adherence to the Ponseti method of clubfoot treatment in Uganda. Understanding of barriers underlies successful and culturally appropriate approaches to program implementation. METHOD: A qualitative study (rapid ethnographic study), using semi-structured interviews, focus groups and observation, was conducted. Interviews were conducted with parents of children with clubfoot (42), adults with clubfoot (2), community leaders (40), traditional healers (39) and practitioners treating clubfoot (38). Some 48 focus groups (24 male, 24 female) were conducted with general community members to ascertain their opinions on the potential barriers. The data was collected by a team of researchers in 8 districts of Uganda over the period of one month. It was then coded manually by the researchers and sorted into themes. RESULTS: The barriers to adherence were classified into 6 themes: (i) problems with programmatic resource availability and regional differences, (ii) distance to treatment site, (iii) poverty, (iv) lack of paternal support, (v) caregiver's other responsibilities, and (vi) challenges of the treatment process. A number of factors that were helpful for encouraging adherence were also identified: (i) outreach and follow-up services, (ii) counselling/caregiver-practitioner partnership, (iii) family harmony and solidarity, and (iv) receiving quality care. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the barriers to adherence in the treatment of clubfoot, as well as factors that could be helpful for overcoming these barriers. This information provides health planners with knowledge to assist them in meeting the needs of the population and implementing effective and appropriate awareness and treatment programs for clubfoot 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".