MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513038652 · doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3541-8

Rational use of antibiotics by community health workers and caregivers for children with suspected pneumonia in Zambia: a cross-sectional mixed methods study

2016· article· en· W2513038652 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kirstie Graham, Chomba Sinyangwe, Sarala Nicholas, Rebecca King, Samuel Mukupa, Karin Källander, Helen Counihan, Mark Montague, James Tibenderana, Prudence Hamade

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlobal Affairs CanadaGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsMedicineBiostatisticsCross-sectional studyPneumoniaPublic healthEnvironmental healthEpidemiologyAntibioticsPediatricsFamily medicineIntensive care medicineNursingInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is an issue of growing global concern. One key strategy to minimise further development of resistance is the rational use of antibiotics, by providers and patients alike. Through integrated community case management (iCCM), children diagnosed with suspected pneumonia are treated with antibiotics; one component of an essential package to reduce child mortality and increase access to health care for remote populations. Through the use of clinical algorithms, supportive supervision and training, iCCM also offers the opportunity to improve the rational use of antibiotics and limit the spread of resistance in resource-poor contexts. This study provides evidence on antibiotic use by community health workers (CHWs) and caregivers to inform iCCM programmes, safeguarding current treatments whilst maximising access to care. METHODS: 1497 CHW consultations were directly observed by non-clinical researchers, with measurement of respiratory rate by CHWs recorded by video. Videos were used to conduct a retrospective reference standard assessment of respiratory rate by experts. Fifty-five caregivers whose children were prescribed a 5-day course of antibiotics for suspected pneumonia were followed up on day six to assess adherence through structured interviews and pill counts. Six focus group discussions and nine in depth interviews were conducted with CHWs and caregivers to supplement quantitative findings. RESULTS: The findings indicate that CHWs adhered to treatment guidelines for 92 % of children seen, prescribing treatment corresponding to their assessment. However, only 65 % of antibiotics prescribed were given for children with experts' confirmed fast breathing pneumonia. Qualitative data indicates that CHWs have a good understanding of pneumonia diagnosis, and although caregivers sometimes applied pressure to receive drugs, CHWs stated that treatment decisions were not influenced. 46 % of caregivers were fully adherent and gave their child the full 5-day course of dispersible amoxicillin. If caregivers who gave treatment for 3 to 5 days were considered, adherence increased to 76 %. CONCLUSIONS: CHWs are capable of prescribing treatment corresponding to their assessment of respiratory rate. However, rational use of antibiotics could be strengthened through improved respiratory rate assessment, and better diagnostic tools. Furthermore, a shorter course of dispersible amoxicillin could potentially improve caregiver adherence, reducing risk of resistance and cost.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207