A Community-based eye care intervention in Southern Egypt: Impact on trachomatous trichiasis surgical coverage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of a community-based intervention on uptake of trichiasis surgery in Southern Egypt. METHODS: Four villages where trachoma is endemic were randomly selected in the Samalout district, Egypt. Two villages were selected for intervention (intervention villages) and two matched villages for nonintervention (nonintervention villages). The intervention model provided community information sessions, door-to-door health education, screening, and improvements in the clinical capacity of eye care providers. The intervention was evaluated through two pre- and post-intervention community-based surveys that included the prevalence of trachoma and the utilization of eye care services at local hospitals. All patients with trichiasis answered a questionnaire regarding surgical utilization and barriers. RESULTS: In the baseline survey, the trachomatous trichiasis (TT) surgical coverage was 22.7% (38.9% males, 16.7% females) in all villages. Following the intervention, the TT surgical coverage increased to 68% in villages that received the intervention (81.5% males, 60% females). Nonintervention villages had a TT surgical coverage of 26.1% (37.5% males, 20% females). In the intervention villages, the prevalence of TT significantly decreased from 9.4% (5.7% males, 11.8% females) to 3.8% (1.9% males, 5.1% females) (P = 0.013), in 2008. In nonintervention villages, there was a slight, but insignificant decrease in TT from 10.1% (3.1% males, 14.4% females) to 8.2% (3% males, 11.5% females) (P = 0.580). The major barriers to uptake of TT surgical services were: "Feeling no problem" (17.3%), "fear of surgery" (12.7%) and "cost" (12.7%). CONCLUSION: A community-based eye health education program with door-to-door screening significantly increased the uptake of TT surgical services. Although improvements to the delivery of surgical service are essential, they did not lead to any significant improvements in the nonintervention villages.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".