MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793186669 · doi:10.1177/1833358317749369

Assessment of health provider readiness for telemedicine services in Uganda

2018· article· en· W2793186669 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Information Management Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelemedicineProject commissioningPublishingHealth careComputer scienceWorld Wide WebMedical emergencyMedicineInternet privacyNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND:: There are few telemedicine projects in Africa that have reached scale. One of the reasons proposed for this has been failure to assess health provider readiness for telemedicine prior to implementation. OBJECTIVE:: To assess health provider readiness for implementation and integration of telemedicine services at three levels of Uganda's health facilities, namely, a national referral hospital (NRH), regional referral hospitals (RRHs) and level 4 health centres (HC-IVs) and to investigate factors associated with readiness for telemedicine. METHOD:: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted at public healthcare facilities in Uganda. One RRH and HC-IV was identified from each of the Western, Eastern and Northern regions using a multistage random sampling technique. Mulago Hospital, which doubles as an RRH and HC-IV in the central region, was purposively identified for the study. After validation, a questionnaire was distributed for self-administration to senior administrators and doctors selected at the NRH, RRHs and HC-IVs. Data were analysed using bivariate associations between the outcome and the potential independent variables. RESULTS:: In total, 114 healthcare workers completed the questionnaire. Of the respondents, 24 (21%) were from HC-IVs, 44 (39%) were from RRHs, and 46 (40%) from NRH. Doctors made up 45.8% (11) of respondents at HC-IVs, 59% (26) at RRHs, and 30.4% (14) at NRH. Administrators across all health facility levels were more likely to integrate telemedicine into the healthcare system than doctors (odd ratio = 1.39 [95% confidence interval = 0.38-4.95]). A significant association existed between the state of readiness and type of health facility, p < 0.001. The NRH and RRHs are more likely to integrate telemedicine into their systems than the HC-IVs. Among the factors investigated (job title, health facility, technology type, reason for referral and frequency of electronic communication), the level of health facility and title or role of healthcare worker were found to have a significant statistical association with being ready to integrate telemedicine into the healthcare system. CONCLUSION:: Health provider readiness to integrate telemedicine services varies at the different levels of the health facility and job title or role. However, referral hospitals and administrators were more likely to integrate telemedicine than HC-IVs and doctors, respectively. While this study shows physicians and administrators are ready, other sectors (nurses, allied healthcare workers, public) will also need to be assessed.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.378 · 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