MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033827765 · doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_23_20

A comprehensive model of health education barriers of health-care system in Iran

2020· article· en· W3033827765 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Health Promotion · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careNonprobability samplingPsychologyHealth educationWorkloadNursingQualitative researchInterpersonal communicationPublic relationsMedical educationMedicinePublic healthSocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: According to the importance of health education (HE) in disease control and prevention and inadequacy of HE in the Iran's health-care system, clarifying the HE barriers is necessary. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to clarifying the comprehensive model of HE barriers of health-care system in Iran. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted in 2019. Twenty-one health experts and physicians at different levels of the health system, a former health deputy of the Ministry of Health, and 26 community health workers (CHWs) were selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected through semi-structured individual interviews and group discussions and analyzed simultaneously by conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Five themes were extracted including individual barriers (most important categories: inadequate ability of CHWs in HE, poor motivational factors at individual level, and educator's wrong beliefs), interpersonal (most important categories: weakness of other health-care providers in the education of CHWs, lack of proper understanding by health authorities of scientific and correct HE, inappropriate communication, unrealistic expectations from CHWs, problems with monitoring and supervision, poor work commitment, and client-related problems), organizational (most important categories: high workload of CHWs, problems related to educational resources, inappropriate attitude of managers and officials, and inappropriate evaluation and monitoring), community (most important categories: not believing CHWs by people, people's disinterest and lack of motivation in education, cultural problems, problems with the Internet and virtual social networks, and weak cross-sectoral cooperation), and contextual barriers (most important categories: barriers related to universities, broadcasting, the nature of HE science, as well as gap between practical education and theory). CONCLUSION: Considering the multidimensional barriers such as individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and contextual barriers, compiling and executing a comprehensive document with the participation of authorities, specialists, and service providers is recommended to remove barriers. This is in line with the Ottawa Charters' "reorienting health services."

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.349
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and Health PromotionSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207