MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808176915

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice and service barriers in a tuberculosis programme in Lakes State, South Sudan: a qualitative study

2018· article· en· W2808176915 on OpenAlexaff
Sheikh Tariquzzaman, Kevin McKague

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDiverse Scientific Research Studies
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTuberculosisStigma (botany)Service delivery frameworkSputumSocial stigmaQualitative researchEnvironmental healthDiseaseFamily medicineService (business)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PsychiatryPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates the incidence of tuberculosis (TB) in South Sudan to be 79 per 100,000 for new sputum smear positive TB and 140 per 100,000 for all forms of TB cases. The case detection rate of 53% for all forms of TB in South Sudan is below the WHO target of 70%. Objective: To explore knowledge, attitude, and practice barriers as well as service barriers to implementing TB programme in Lakes State, South Sudan. Method: This was a qualitative study conducted in May 2015. Results: Despite some understanding of the symptoms, causes, and consequences of TB, the stigma for TB and lack of disclosure of the disease, is very high among the local community. The limited network of TB facilities for case detection, lack of community distribution of TB drugs and lack of food at hospitals when patients were admitted for treatment, are key barriers to TB service delivery. Conclusion: To overcome barriers it is recommended that the local community worldview should be incorporated into TB awareness, testing, and treatment, and attention should be paid to areas where traditional practices, such as elimination of maize, clash with modern treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.504
GPT teacher head0.693
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicDiverse Scientific Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207