Provider perspectives on drug-resistant tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus care in South Africa: a qualitative case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine influences on health care workers' (HCWs') capacity to deliver health care for multi- and/or extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/XDR-TB) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in South Africa. DESIGN: Qualitative data were collected via group and individual interviews with a purposive sample of 17 HCWs at a centralised, tertiary TB facility and analysed using grounded theory. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: 1) personal infection control practices among HCWs may be weakened by a workplace culture comprising low motivation, disparate risk perceptions and practices across workforce hierarchies, physical discomfort, and problems managing patients with treatment-induced hearing loss. 2) Patient-provider interactions are likely stronger among nurses, and in HIV vs. MDR/XDR-TB service delivery, due to greater attention to patient empowerment and support. Stigma associated with MDR/XDR-TB, considered worse than HIV, may be perpetuated within non-specialised facilities less familiar with MDR/XDR-TB. 3) HCWs who struggle with the daily tedium of MDR/XDR-TB treatment supervision are becoming increasingly supportive of treatment literacy and self-administration. 4) Effective integration of HIV and MDR/XDR-TB services may be impeded by administrative restrictions, workplace norms and provider mindsets. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive, decentralised management of MDR/XDR-TB and HIV coinfection requires the creation of patient-provider trust and treatment literacy in MDR/XDR-TB programmes, and defying workplace norms that could provoke nosocomial TB exposure and fragmented service provision.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".