The outcome and cost of a capacity‐building training programme on the early recognition and referral of childhood cancer for healthcare workers in North‐West Cameroon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Early cancer diagnosis is necessary to improve survival rates. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome and cost of the childhood cancer training programme amongst healthcare workers. Design This was a prospective pre–post study design, using questionnaires for pre‐ and post‐training testing. The warning signs of childhood cancer were used as the main teaching content to improve recognition and early diagnosis. Methods Pre‐training and post‐training knowledge, as well as attitude questionnaires, was administered at the beginning and at the end of each training workshop. Paired samples t test and chi‐square were used to compare the change in knowledge and differences between groups. Results The overall percentage knowledge score increased from 51%–85% (p < .001). The doctors had a better knowledge score than the nurses in the pre‐test (70% versus 50%, p = .008), but there was no significant difference in the post‐test scores. The cost of training was €25.06 per healthcare worker. Conclusion We recommend similar training programmes in public health to improve early diagnosis of childhood cancer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".