MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955886651 · doi:10.1017/s1463423619000495

Healthcare providers’ perspectives of providing primary healthcare services to persons with physical disabilities in rural Ghana

2019· article· en· W2955886651 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

VenuePrimary Health Care Research & Development · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary health careHealth carePrimary careNursingMedicineFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence has shown that persons with physical disabilities experience substantial barriers in accessing primary healthcare (PHC) services in rural areas. Negative attitudes from healthcare providers and inaccessible healthcare facilities and equipment are common experiences that negatively affect access to quality healthcare for persons with physical disabilities. However, there is limited research that explores this issue from the perspectives of healthcare providers. This qualitative study explores the perspectives of healthcare providers in delivering PHC services to persons with physical disabilities in rural Ghana. Understanding healthcare providers' perspectives could help leverage previous findings from clients' experiences to more fully inform the development of specific and actionable research and interventions to improve healthcare delivery for disabled people. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 15 healthcare providers and used thematic analysis to analyze the data. RESULTS: Participants reported their perspectives in three major themes: challenges in providing healthcare (eg, limited availability of drugs and medical equipment, limited healthcare providers, financial constraints, and inaccessible facilities and equipment); strategies in navigating the challenges (eg, improvising techniques and employing professional values, referring clients, and providing financial assistance to clients); and positive experience in providing healthcare (eg, feeling rewarded and appreciated). CONCLUSION: The findings reinforce the need to consider the availability of rehabilitation professionals and services to address the specific healthcare needs of disabled people at the PHC level in Ghana. The findings also point to a need for further research on the perspectives of healthcare policymakers about how to navigate the systemic barriers encountered by providers in providing care to persons with physical disabilities in rural Ghana in particular, and other similar rural areas.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.358 · 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