Protocol for the evaluation of a pilot implementation of essential interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases in primary healthcare in the Republic of Moldova
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nearly 90% of all deaths in the Republic of Moldova are caused by non-communicable diseases, the majority of which (55%) are caused by cardiovascular diseases (CVD). In addition to reducing premature mortality from CVD, it is estimated that strengthening primary healthcare could cut the number of hypertension-related hospital admissions and diabetes-related hospitalisations in half. The aim of this evaluation is to determine the feasibility of implementing and evaluating essential interventions for the prevention of CVD in primary healthcare in the Republic of Moldova, with a view towards national scale-up. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A national steering group including international experts will be convened to adapt WHO Package of Essential NCD Intervention from Primary Healthcare in Low Resource Settings protocols 1 and 2 to the health system of the Republic of Moldova, develop and conduct training of primary healthcare workers and test a core set of indicators to monitor the quality of care and change in clinical practice. To evaluate the impact of this pilot implementation, a pragmatic, sequential mixed methods explanatory design, composed of quantitative and qualitative strands of equal weight, will be used. Twenty primary healthcare centres will be selected and randomised to the training and implementation arm (n=10) and the usual care arm (n=10). At baseline and 12 months follow-up, a standardised data collection form will be piloted to extract data directly from patient paper records in order to estimate the change in clinical practice. Semi-structured interviews and interclinic peer workshops will be conducted at 12 months follow-up, and qualitative data collected from these formats will be analysed thematically for explanatory themes that relate to the quantitative findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review and approval has been obtained. Findings of the evaluation will be shared in a project report to key stakeholders, presented back to participants and written into a manuscript for an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal.
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 | 0.105 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.017 |
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".