MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947344714 · doi:10.1186/s41256-019-0106-2

Effects of scaling up various community-level interventions on child mortality in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania: a modeling study

2019· article· en· W2947344714 on OpenAlexaff
Celestin Hategeka, Germaine Tuyisenge, Christian Bayingana, Lisine Tuyisenge

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Research and Policy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesBC Mental Health & Substance Use ServicesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineChild mortalityEnvironmental healthTanzaniaBreastfeedingMalnutritionPublic healthSevere Acute MalnutritionPopulationIndoor residual sprayingUnder-fivePediatricsMalariaSocioeconomicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Improving child health remains one of the most significant health challenges in sub-Saharan Africa, a region that accounts for half of the global burden of under-five mortality despite having approximately 13% of the world population and 25% of births globally. Improving access to evidence-based community-level interventions has increasingly been advocated to contribute to reducing child mortality and, thus, help low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) achieve the child health related Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target. Nevertheless, the coverage of community-level interventions remains suboptimal. In this study, we estimated the potential impact of scaling up various community-level interventions on child mortality in five East African Community (EAC) countries (i.e., Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania). METHODS: We identified ten preventive and curative community-level interventions that have been reported to reduce child mortality: Breastfeeding promotion, complementary feeding, vitamin A supplementation, Zinc for treatment of diarrhea, hand washing with soap, hygienic disposal of children's stools, oral rehydration solution (ORS), oral antibiotics for treatment of pneumonia, treatment for moderate acute malnutrition (MAM), and prevention of malaria using insecticide-treated nets and indoor residual spraying (ITN/IRS). Using the Lives Saved Tool, we modeled the impact on child mortality of scaling up these 10 interventions from baseline coverage (2016) to ideal coverage (99%) by 2030 (ideal scale-up scenario) relative to business as usual (BAU) scenario (forecasted coverage based on prior coverage trends). Our outcome measures include number of child deaths prevented. RESULTS: Compared to BAU scenario, ideal scale-up of the 10 interventions could prevent approximately 74,200 (sensitivity bounds 59,068-88,611) child deaths by 2030 including 10,100 (8210-11,870) deaths in Burundi, 10,300 (7831-12,619) deaths in Kenya, 4350 (3678-4958) deaths in Rwanda, 20,600 (16049-25,162) deaths in Uganda, and 28,900 (23300-34,002) deaths in the United Republic of Tanzania. The top four interventions (oral antibiotics for pneumonia, ORS, hand washing with soap, and treatment for MAM) account for over 75.0% of all deaths prevented in each EAC country: 78.4% in Burundi, 76.0% in Kenya, 81.8% in Rwanda, 91.0% in Uganda and 88.5% in the United Republic of Tanzania. CONCLUSIONS: Scaling up interventions that can be delivered at community level by community health workers could contribute to substantial reduction of child mortality in EAC and could help the EAC region achieve child health-related SDG target. Our findings suggest that the top four community-level interventions could account for more than three-quarters of all deaths prevented across EAC countries. Going forward, costs of scaling up each intervention will be estimated to guide policy decisions including health resource allocations in EAC countries.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health Research and PolicySame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207