Community health workers, recipients’ experiences and constraints to care in South Africa – a pathway to trust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community health workers (CHWs) affiliated with community-based organisations are central to the implementation of primary health care in district health services in South Africa. Here, we explore factors that affect the provision of and access to care in two provinces - Gauteng and Eastern Cape. Drawing on narratives of care recipients and the CHWs who support them, we illustrate the complex issues surrounding health maintenance and primary care outreach in poor communities, and describe how the intimate interactions between providers and recipients work to build trust. In the study we report here, householders in Gauteng Province had poor access to health care and other services, complicating the impoverished circumstances of their everyday lives. The limited resources available to CHWs hindered their ability to meet householders' needs and for householders to benefit from existing services. CHWs in the Eastern Cape were better able to address the needs of poor householders because of the organisational support available to them. Based on an ethos of integrated and holistic care, this enabled the CHWs to address the recipients' context-related needs, and health and medical needs, while building greater levels of trust with their clients.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".