MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154539668 · doi:10.12927/whp.2013.22337

Treating Common Illnesses among Children under Five Years: A Portrayal of Health-Seeking Behaviours and Practices in the Northern Areas of Pakistan

2011· article· en· W2154539668 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Babar Tasneem Shaikh, Dave Haran

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld health & population · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGovernment (linguistics)Health careHealth promotionFamily medicineHealth facilityPromotion (chess)Environmental healthHealth educationNursingPublic healthPopulationHealth servicesEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate practices and behaviours while treating a child's illness impede correct medical consultation. We studied the health seeking behaviours of people engaging with healthcare systems for the treatment of under-five children. METHODOLOGY: In the Ghizer District of the Northern Areas of Pakistan, a descriptive cross-sectional household survey was conducted in a random sample of 25 communities. Respondents were either a parent or caregiver of the child. RESULTS: Malaria, fever and diarrhea were found in almost one third of the children under five. One third of respondents did not know the cause of the child's illness. For seeking quality care, the majority visit private clinics, but home remedies, traditional practices and consultation with a faith healer were also common. Lack of knowledge about the child's illness and not making it a priority, lack of money and restricted women's social mobility are factors behind the delayed consultation (median delay: 2 to 3 days). CONCLUSION: Health education and health promotion programs must address the knowledge gaps about children's illnesses and advocate appropriate health-seeking behaviours. Issues around quality of care in government centres and affordability in the private health sector must be addressed in order to improve health service utilization.

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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld health & populationSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207