Why are Children Brought Late for Cataract Surgery? Qualitative Findings from Tanzania
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Worldwide, at least 190,000 children are blind due to cataract. Although, surgical intervention is the treatment of choice, in most developing countries the number of children with cataract being brought to hospital for surgery has been few in number, considerably less than the burden of disease in the community. Furthermore, long delay in presentation is a major deterrent to improved visual outcome and compromises the future quality of life of children and their families. The main objective of this qualitative study was to provide a better understanding of surgical delay in the care of children with congenital or developmental cataract. METHODS: We conducted 117 semi-structured interviews with parents or guardians of children admitted for cataract surgery at a tertiary hospital in northern Tanzania. RESULTS: We identified several factors influencing the treatment-seeking behaviors of parents and guardians, including gender relations within the household, local health beliefs about cataract and cataract surgery and the ability of health care professionals in primary and secondary care settings to adequately inform parents and guardians about cataract and cataract surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Practical, short and medium term avenues must be explored to reduce delays of presentation. Public education, training of health workers and counseling efforts in the communities may be necessary to enable children to access services in a timely fashion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it