MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2615542837 · doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4378-5

Health care waste management in community-based care: experiences of community health workers in low resource communities in South Africa

2017· article· en· W2615542837 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Environmental Waste Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaAfrican Population and Health Research CenterNational Research FoundationInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsMedicineToiletSanitationFocus groupLatrineHygieneBiomedical wasteHealth carePublic healthEnvironmental healthPit latrineNursingBusinessEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In South Africa, community health workers (CHWs) working in community-based care (CBC) programmes provide care to patients most of whom are living with HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis (TB). Although studies have shown that the caregiving activities provided by the CHWs generate health care waste (HCW), there is limited information about the experiences of CHWs on health care waste management (HCWM) in CBC. This study explored HCWM in CBC in Durban, South Africa from the perspectives CHWs. METHODS: We used three ethnographic approaches to collect data: focus group discussions, participant observations and informal discussions. Data was collected from 85 CHWs working in 29 communities in the Durban metropolis, South Africa. Data collection took place from July 2013 to August 2014. RESULTS: CHWs provided nursing care activities to patients many of whom were incontinent or bedridden. Some the patients were living with HIV/AIDS/TB, stroke, diabetes, asthma, arthritis and high blood pressure. These caregiving activities generate sharps and infectious waste but CHWs and family members did not segregate HCW according to the risk posed as stipulated by the HCWM policy. In addition, HCW was left with domestic waste. Major barriers to proper HCWM identified by CHWs include, lack of assistance from family members in assisting patients to use the toilet or change diapers and removing HCW from homes, irregular waste collection by waste collectors, inadequate water for practicing hygiene and sanitation, long distance between the house and the toilets and poor conditions of communal toilets and pit latrines. As a result of these barriers, HCW was illegally dumped along roads or in the bush, burnt openly and buried within the yards. Liquid HCW such as vomit, urine and sputum were disposed in open spaces near the homes. CONCLUSION: Current policies on primary health care (PHC) and HCWM in South Africa have not paid attention to HCWM. Findings suggest the need for primary health care reform to develop the competencies of CHWs in HCWM. In addition, PHC and HCWM policies should address the infrastructure deficit in low resource communities. In order for low-and-middle-income-countries (LMICs) to develop effective community health worker programmes, there is a need for synergies in PHC and HCWM policies.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.248 · 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