An Assessment of Care-Seeking Behavior in Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa District: A Triple Pluralistic Health Sector Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discussions and studies on Ghana’s pluralistic health care system usually ignore or downplay self-care as a crucial sector in this system of care. In view of this, this study uses a triple sector approach of the pluralistic health care system as advocated by Kleinman to assess care-seeking behaviors of residents in the Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa District (Ghana). The results of cross-tabulation analysis demonstrate that respondents’ general care–seeking behavior is different from the type of care sought for last illness before the study. Data for the study were obtained from 227 urban and rural respondents in the study district in 2013. The findings indicate that factors such as geographic location, health insurance, and perception of the cost of professional care had a bearing on residents’ general care–seeking behavior. However, age, sex, relationship status, economic status, and proximity to nearest biomedical care service influenced the type of treatment sought for last illness. The approach use of the study demonstrates that self-care remains a general avenue of care for residents, whereas in times of severe illness, respondents often rely on professional biomedical care. The use of professional indigenous care services is generally low due to the financial burden associated with its use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".