Reasons for patient visit to a rural general practitioner (GP) practice in Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa compared with those in first world countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The common symptoms that patients present with, to a rural general practitioner (GP) in South Africa may be different to those of GP practices in urban areas and different from patient presentations in first world countries. This study looked at the common reasons for which patients visited a GP in Kwa-Dukuza, South Africa over a four month period during 2006. Kwa-Dukuza is located on the North Coast of Kwa-Zulu Natal to establish the common symptoms and clinical assessments of patients visiting a GP’s private practice and to ascertain the demographics of patients coming to the practice. A cross sectional descriptive survey whereby the reason for every visit, age, sex, payment method (cash or medical aid) and the clinical assessment were recorded for every patient from February to May 2006. The common reasons for patients visiting the GP were cough, fever, and diarrhoea, feeling weak, headaches, sore throat, abdominal pain and runny nose. There were a substantial number of visits for administrative reasons. The common symptoms related to respiratory tract illness, gastrointestinal complaints, stress and depression, skin and back complaints. Reasons for patient visit to an urban GP practice were similar to GP visits in other first world studies (United Kingdom, USA and Canada). Substantial time with patients is spent on administrative issues. It appears that patients visit doctors in rural and urban geographic areas of South Africa for similar reasons to other patients elsewhere. Key words: General practitioner, rural practice, reasons for doctor visits, administrative issues.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".