MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2956519690 · doi:10.31899/rh6.1035

The rationale and relevance of existing cadres of frontline health workers and potential for new mid-level cadres

2018· report· en· W2956519690 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Oladimeji Oladepo, Ekechi Okereke, Akinwumi Akinola

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlobal Affairs CanadaWorld Health Organization
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Economic shortageRelevance (law)NursingHuman resourcesWelfareRural areaEconomic growthMedicineQuality (philosophy)BusinessEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Front-line health workers (FLHWs) are expected to perform necessary maternal, newborn, and child (MNCH) services appropriately and effectively; however, few studies have investigated the extent to which FLHWs perform requisite primary health care (PHC) services. This study seeks to better understand not only FLHWs’ knowledge and performance of MNCH services, but the factors promoting and inhibiting their services in selected rural local government areas of Nigeria’s Bauchi and Cross River states. It also investigates the potential for a new PHC worker cadre, soliciting stakeholders’ perceptions about its feasibility for addressing maternal and newborn disease burdens in rural communities. The study’s findings show a shortage of all FLHW cadres—and for nurses and midwives, this shortage is critical—as well as insufficient equipment and materials required for FLHWs’ quality MNCH services, inadequate knowledge of critical MNCH issues, and poor staff welfare. The report details the urgent actions needed to strengthen human resources for health in rural communities in Nigeria.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Maternal and Child Health→French-language works237,207→