A Mixed Methods Study of a Health Worker Training Intervention to Increase Syndromic Referral for Gambiense Human African Trypanosomiasis in South Sudan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active screening by mobile teams is considered the most effective method for detecting gambiense-type human African trypanosomiasis (HAT) but constrained funding in many post-conflict countries limits this approach. Non-specialist health care workers (HCWs) in peripheral health facilities could be trained to identify potential cases for testing based on symptoms. We tested a training intervention for HCWs in peripheral facilities in Nimule, South Sudan to increase knowledge of HAT symptomatology and the rate of syndromic referrals to a central screening and treatment centre. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We trained 108 HCWs from 61/74 of the public, private and military peripheral health facilities in the county during six one-day workshops and assessed behaviour change using quantitative and qualitative methods. In four months prior to training, only 2/562 people passively screened for HAT were referred from a peripheral HCW (0 cases detected) compared to 13/352 (2 cases detected) in the four months after, a 6.5-fold increase in the referral rate observed by the hospital. Modest increases in absolute referrals received, however, concealed higher levels of referral activity in the periphery. HCWs in 71.4% of facilities followed-up had made referrals, incorporating new and pre-existing ideas about HAT case detection into referral practice. HCW knowledge scores of HAT symptoms improved across all demographic sub-groups. Of 71 HAT referrals made, two-thirds were from new referrers. Only 11 patients completed the referral, largely because of difficulties patients in remote areas faced accessing transportation. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The training increased knowledge and this led to more widespread appropriate HAT referrals from a low base. Many referrals were not completed, however. Increasing access to screening and/or diagnostic tests in the periphery will be needed for greater impact on case-detection in this context. These data suggest it may be possible for peripheral HCWs to target the use of rapid diagnostic tests for HAT.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".