Analysis of the impact of healthcare support initiatives for physically disabled people on their access to care in the city of Saint-Louis, Senegal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with disabilities represent approximately 6% of the Senegalese population. They face significant barriers to accessing health care. Although several initiatives have been implemented to improve access to health care for this vulnerable population, few studies have examined the effects of these initiatives. We conducted a mixed methods study in three neighborhoods in Saint-Louis City (Senegal) to assess the impact of health systems and social assistance programs aimed at improving access to health care for people with disabilities. METHODS: Data were collected from 105 people living with disabilities aged 1-49 years (or their caregivers). Interviews were also conducted with key stakeholders in the health and welfare sectors. Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of all the health and social services within the city were obtained. We also conducted observations in the main regional hospital, the district health center and three level-one health facilities to assess physical accessibility as well as interactions between patients living with disabilities and health and social workers. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed using Sphinx software. Spatial data were used to make cartographic representations of the proximity to basic social services using Arc GIS software. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of survey respondents reported difficulty obtaining treatment. Key barriers to care included the high cost of care, as well as ill-treatment by health workers. Limited human resources and low levels of financial support, combined with logistical challenges were reported to hamper the success of social welfare initiatives that aim to facilitate access to health care for people with disabilities. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that initiatives to increase access to health care among people with disability in Saint-Louis have had limited impact. Study findings underscore the importance of strengthening social assistance schemes within the health system and the need for social workers and health workers to collaborate to improve access to health care for people with disabilities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".