MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091152859 · doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.17

Long and short Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) training courses in Afghanistan: a cross-sectional cohort comparison of post-course knowledge and performance

2015· article· en· W2091152859 on OpenAlexaff
Maureen Mayhew, Paul Ickx, William Newbrander, Hedayatullah Stanekzai, Sayed Alisha Alawi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsMedicineIntegrated Management of Childhood IllnessConfidence intervalCross-sectional studyPublic healthCohortAfghanShort coursePediatricsFamily medicineNursingPopulationEnvironmental healthPrimary health careInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2003 the Afghan Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) adopted the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) for delivering child health services in primary care facilities. Key problems were subsequently identified: high cost of training, frequent health worker turnover and poor quality of IMCI implementation by those trained - specifically in the use of job aids and protocols for assessment, classification, treatment and counselling. The high financial, human resources and opportunity costs of implementing IMCI spurred the MoPH to prioritize developing a shortened IMCI course of comparable quality to the 11-Day training. METHODS: This cross-sectional evaluation compared knowledge before and after training, and health worker performance in assessment, classification and treatment of sick children in two similar cohorts, eight months post-training. RESULTS: The mean increase in knowledge scores of the thirty 7-Day course trainees was 29 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 24, 34] compared to 23 (95% CI: 18, 28) in the 31 trained in the 11-Day course. During assessment visits, mean scores in the 7-Day course trainees and the 11-Day course trainees were 93% (95% CI: 91, 95) versus 94% (95% CI: 91, 96) in assessment; 95% (95% CI: 89, 100) versus 96% (95% CI: 91, 100) in classification; 95% (95% CI: 92, 100) versus 97% (95% CI: 95, 100) in treatment; and 81% (95% CI: 76, 86) versus 80% (95% CI: 75, 85) in counselling. The 7-Day course was 36% less expensive than the 11-Day course. For each course opportunity costs, measured as numbers of children who potentially received poorer care than usual during trainee absence, were 3,160 for the 11-Day course and 2,016 for the 7-Day course. This measure was chosen because trainee absence commonly resulted in higher patient volumes per remaining provider or complete closure of a health facility with one single health worker. CONCLUSION: Given similar performance and knowledge of health workers trained in both courses, potential cost savings, the possibility of training more health workers and the relative ease with which health workers in remote settings might participate in a shorter course, it seems prudent to standardize the 7-Day course in Afghanistan where child mortality rates remain unacceptably high.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health Policy and ManagementSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207