The role of gender relations in uptake of mass drug administration for lymphatic filariasis in Alor District, Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis has set 2020 as a target to eliminate lymphatic filariasis (LF) as a public health problem through mass drug administration (MDA) to all eligible people living in endemic areas. To obtain a better understanding of compliance with LF treatment, a qualitative study using 43 in-depth interviews was carried out in Alor District, Indonesia to explore factors that motivate uptake of LF treatment, including the social and behavioural differences between compliant and non-compliant individuals. In this paper, we report on the findings specific to the role of family and gender relations and how they affect compliance. RESULTS: The sample comprised 21 men and 22 women; 24 complied with treatment while 19 did not. Gender relations emerged as a key theme in access, uptake and compliance with MDA. The view that the husband, as head of household, had the power, control, and in some cases the responsibility to influence whether his wife took the medication was common among both men and women. Gender also affected priorities for health care provision in the household as well as overall decision making regarding health in the household. Four models of responsibility for health decision making emerged: (i) responsibility resting primarily with the husband; (ii) responsibility resting primarily with the wife; (iii) responsibility shared equally by both husband and wife; and (iv) responsibility autonomously assumed by each individual for his or her own self, regardless of the course of action of the other spouse. CONCLUSIONS: (i) Gender relations and social hierarchy influence compliance with LF treatment because they inherently affect decisions taken within the household regarding health; (ii) health care interventions need to take account of the complexity of gender roles; (iii) the fact that women's power tends to be implicit and not overtly recognised in the household or the community has important implications for health care interventions; (iv) campaigns and other preventive interventions need to take account of the diversity of patterns of health care decision-making and responsibility in specific communities so that social mobilisation messages can be tailored appropriately.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".