Healthcare providers’ perspectives of providing primary healthcare services to persons with physical disabilities in rural Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".