Brazilian community health agents and qualitative primary healthcare information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to explore female community health agents' views about the value of recording qualitative information on contextual health issues they observe during home visits, data that are not officially required to be documented for the Brazilian System of Primary Healthcare Information. BACKGROUND: The study was conducted in community primary healthcare centres located in the cities of Araçatuba and Coroados (state of São Paulo) and Rio de Janeiro (state of Rio de Janeiro), Brazil. METHODS: The design was a qualitative, exploratory study. The purposeful sampling criteria were being female, with a minimum of three years of continuous service in the same location. Data collection with 62 participants was conducted via 11 focus groups (in 2007 and 2008). Audio files were transcribed and submitted to the method of thematic analysis. Four themes guided the analysis: working with qualitative information and undocumented observation; reflecting on qualitative information; integrating/analysing quantitative and qualitative information; and information-sharing with agents and family health teams. In 2010, 25 community health agents verified the final interpretation of the findings. FINDINGS: Participants valued the recording of qualitative, contextual information to expand understanding of primary healthcare issues and as an indicator of clients' improved health behaviour and health literacy. While participants initiated the recording of additional health information, they generally did not inform the family health team about these findings. They perceived that team members devalued this type of information by considering it a reflection of the clientele's social conditions or problems beyond the scope of medical concerns. Documentation of qualitative evidence can account for the effectiveness of health education in two ways: by improving preventative care, and by amplifying the voices of underprivileged clients who live in poverty to ensure the most appropriate and best quality primary healthcare for them.
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 | 0.041 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".