Maasai Community Perception of Oral Thrush: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To determine perception and understanding of oral thrush among Maasai women of reproductive age (WRA), Traditional Birth Attendants (TBAs), village leaders and health care workers in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA).Study Design: Cross sectional, qualitative research.Place and Duration: Three villages namely; Olbalbal, Misigiyo and Alelilai in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, between March 2013 and September 2014.Methodology: We included women of reproductive age (210), village leaders (5), Traditional Birth Attendants (TBA) (13) and health care providers (18).Data was collected using focus group discussions among Traditional Birth Attendants and village leaders, interview for women of reproductive age and health care providers.Results: The community recognizes that oral thrush is a problem among pregnant and lactating Short Research ArticleMaasai women.According to the Traditional Birth Attendants and village leaders, it is believed that oral thrush came with the modern use of western medication as opposed to their traditional medications used earlier.They stated that their way of life has changed significantly causing these problems.Most WRA say oral thrush is a problem, but they do not know the cause.However, health care providers know that oral thrush is a problem with some knowing the causes and associated risk factors in the Maasai community.Conclusion: There appears to be an information gap between community members and health care providers with respect to the causes of oral thrush in women of child-bearing age in Ngorongoro Conservation Area.It is noted that TBAs are important to rectify this deficit, because if they understand the problem they can influence changes.Results from this research work can inform more effective health promotion initiatives and interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".