MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610285560 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0679

Improving Allocation And Management Of The Health Workforce In Zambia

2017· article· en· W2610285560 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fiona Walsh, Mutinta Musonda, Jere Mwila, Margaret L. Prust, Kathryn Bradford Vosburg, Günther Fink, Peter Berman, Peter C. Rockers

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingWorkforceBusinessWorkloadHealth policyQuarter (Canadian coin)Public healthEconomic growthMedicineNursingEconomicsManagementGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building a health workforce in low-income countries requires a focused investment of time and resources, and ministries of health need tools to create staffing plans and prioritize spending on staff for overburdened health facilities. In Zambia a demand-based workload model was developed to calculate the number of health workers required to meet demands for essential health services and inform a rational and optimized strategy for deploying new public-sector staff members to the country's health facilities. Between 2009 and 2011 Zambia applied this optimized deployment policy, allocating new health workers to areas with the greatest demand for services. The country increased its health worker staffing in districts with fewer than one health worker per 1,000 people by 25.2 percent, adding 949 health workers to facilities that faced severe staffing shortages. At facilities that had had low staffing levels, adding a skilled provider was associated with an additional 103 outpatient consultations per quarter. Policy makers in resource-limited countries should consider using strategic approaches to identifying and deploying a rational distribution of health workers to provide the greatest coverage of health services to their populations.

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)0.000
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 score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207