Acceptable Care? Illness Constructions, Healthworlds, and Accessible Chronic Treatment in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achieving equitable access to health care is an important policy goal, with access influenced by affordability, availability, and acceptability of specific services. We explore patient narratives from a 5-year program of research on health care access to examine relationships between social constructions of illness and the acceptability of health services in the context of tuberculosis treatment and antiretroviral therapy in South Africa. Acceptability of services seems particularly important to the meanings patients attach to illness and care, whereas-conversely-these constructions appear to influence what constitutes acceptability and hence affect access to care. We highlight the underestimated role of individually, socially, and politically constructed healthworlds; traditional and biomedical beliefs; and social support networks. Suggested policy implications for improving acceptability and hence overall health care access include abandoning patronizing approaches to care and refocusing from treating "disease" to responding to "illness" by acknowledging and incorporating patients' healthworlds in patient-provider interactions.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".