A Study of Medical Equipment Donations: Recipient Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poorly executed medical equipment donations create major problems for developing countries. The International Outreach Committee of the Canadian Medical and Biological Engineering Society (CMBES), in partnership with the Ghana Biomedical Engineering Association, conducted a study to better understand the medical equipment donation practices of Canadian organizations, and to share best practices to help improve donation effectiveness. We surveyed and interviewed Canadian donor organizations as well as hospital administrators and health care workers in 29 Ghanaian hospitals that have received medical equipment donations . The overall results of our study will be presented, with a focus on the Canadian interviews and the perspectives of recipient hospitals in Ghana. Major challenges reported by donation recipients in Ghana included: a general lack of training for technical staff, poor post-donation follow-up practices, poor communication,and a lack of spare parts to maintain the donated equipment. As a result, improper maintenance reduces equipment efficacy and lifespan. Despite these concerns, in general recipients felt that donated medical equipment benefits their facility in diverse ways: e.g., facilitating service delivery to clients/patients, reducing workload, more accurate diagnostic information, and improved productivity of health workers. Any donation initiative should be part of an on-going partnership consisting of three core elements: consultation; planning and process; and follow-up and monitoring. Details about these stages will be elaborated on in the presentation. As part of on-going efforts to improve the effectiveness of medical equipment donations from Canada, the CMBES has created a video to help disseminate these best practices.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".