In-Kind Drug Donations for Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tanzania, a country with low access to essential drugs, receives substantial drug donations (DDs) as in-kind gifts. To support the ongoing health sector reform and to promote a good donation practice, stakeholders' and recipients' views on the appropriateness and acceptability of DDs are of particular interest. The objectives were to collect information on the situation of in-kind DDs in Tanzania, to assess the characteristics of the DD system in Tanzania and to collect stakeholders' and recipients' views on problematic areas in DD processes including all strategies of drug donation. Using a qualitative approach, data were collected through validated postal questionnaires in Swahili and English, which were sent out in June 2001 countrywide to stakeholders of all sectors and levels of decision-making involved in healthcare in Tanzania. Of 1,383 mailed questionnaires, 496 were returned, of which 411 (30%) were eligible for analysis. All respondents perceived in-kind DDs as an important resource to assure drug availability in a context of poverty. Half of the respondents were recipients of in-kind DDs. On average, an estimated 27% of the recipients' drug supply was covered through DDs. The main problem for recipients of all sectors involved in healthcare was the insufficient quantity of DDs for sustainable treatment. Representatives of the public sector asked for more transparency in the DD processes. NGOs and religious facilities with better developed structures raised problems such as shipment fees, insufficient infrastructure and training. Recipients suggested that optimizing communication would have the greatest impact on improving the DD processes. In Tanzania, DDs were highly accepted by recipients and stakeholders. The primary concern of DD recipients was less the quality of drugs, although quality assurance remained an ongoing concern, than the discrepancy between the recipients' needs and the donors' supply. DDs often failed to cover priority needs. Suggestions of recipients for DD process optimization corresponded fully with the principles of the Tanzanian and the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for DDs, with the call for better implementation of the guidelines among donors and recipients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".