MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126944566 · doi:10.1186/1475-2875-11-436

Provider knowledge of treatment policy and dosing regimen with artemether-lumefantrine and quinine in malaria-endemic areas of western Kenya

2012· article· en· W2126944566 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Carren A Watsierah, Rosebella Onyango, James Ombaka, Benard Abong’o, Collins Ouma

Bibliographic record

VenueMalaria Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Commission for Science and TechnologyAfrican Population and Health Research CenterInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsArtemether/lumefantrineQuinineMedical prescriptionMalariaMedicineLumefantrineArtemisininArtemetherRegimenPublic healthDosingMefloquinePharmacyFamily medicineEnvironmental healthPlasmodium falciparumPharmacologySurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Due to widespread anti-malarial drug resistance in many countries, Kenya included, artemisinin-based Combination Therapy (ACT) has been adopted as the most effective treatment option against malaria. Artemether-lumefantrine (AL) is the first-line ACT for treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Kenya, while quinine is preferred for complicated and severe malaria. Information on the providers' knowledge and practices prior to or during AL and quinine implementation is scanty. The current study evaluated providers' knowledge and practices of treatment policy and dosing regimens with AL and quinine in the public, private and not-for-profit drug outlets. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey using three-stage sampling of 288 (126 public, 96 private and 66 not-for-profits) providers in drug outlets was conducted in western Kenya in two Plasmodium falciparum-endemic regions with varying malarial risk. Information on provider in-service training, knowledge (qualification, treatment policy, dosing regimen, recently banned anti-malarials) and on practices (request for written prescription, prescription of AL, selling partial packs and advice given to patients after prescription), was collected. RESULTS: Only 15.6% of providers in private outlets had received any in-service training on AL use. All (100%) in public and majority (98.4%) in not-for-profit outlets mentioned AL as first line-treatment drug. Quinine was mentioned as second-line drug by 47.9% in private outlets. A total of 92.0% in public, 57.3% in private and 78.8% in not-for-profit outlets stated correct AL dose for adults. A total of 85.7% of providers in public, 30.2% in private and 41.0% in not-for-profit outlets were aware that SP recommendations changed from treatment for mild malaria to IPTp in high risk areas. In-service training influenced treatment regimen for uncomplicated malaria (P = 0.039 and P = 0.039) and severe malaria (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.002) in children and adults, respectively. Most (82.3%) of private outlets sell partial packs of AL while 72.4% do not request for written prescription for AL. In-service training influenced request for written prescription (P = 0.001), AL prescription (P < 0.0001) and selling of partial packs (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Public-sector providers have higher knowledge on treatment policy and dosing regimen on recommended anti-malarials. Changes in treatment guidelines should be accompanied by subsequent implementation activities involving all sector players in unbiased strategies.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMalaria JournalSame topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207