MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044704424 · doi:10.1080/09638280701240102

Understanding the barriers to clubfoot treatment adherence in Uganda: A rapid ethnographic study

2007· article· en· W2044704424 on OpenAlex
Theresa McElroy, Joseph Konde-Lule, Stella Neema, Sheba Gitta, The Uganda Sustainable Clubfoot Car

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubfootFocus groupQualitative researchPonseti methodMedicineNursingOutreachPovertyGeneral partnershipHealth careFamily medicinePsychologyMedical educationSociologyPolitical scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.259 · 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