MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093022449 · doi:10.12688/gatesopenres.13184.1

Using developmental evaluation to implement an oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) project in Kenya

2020· preprint· en· W3093022449 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Linda Fogarty, Abednego Musau, Mark Kabue, Daniel Were, Jane Mutegi, Patricia Ong’wen, Mercy Kamau, Jason Reed

Bibliographic record

VenueGates Open Research · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthGilead SciencesBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsOperationalizationBest practiceChristian ministryService (business)Resource (disambiguation)MedicineMedical educationKnowledge managementComputer sciencePublic relationsBusinessEngineeringPolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oral Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly effective in lowering HIV transmission risk. The Bill and Melinda Gates-funded Jilinde Project was designed to identify the best ways to introduce and support PrEP services in Kenya for female sex workers, men who have sex with men, and adolescent girls and young women. We chose Developmental Evaluation (DE) as a core project approach because our goal was not just to recruit 20,000 new PrEP users, but to learn how to deliver PrEP effectively to optimally benefit users in a complex, dynamic, resource-limited setting. This paper describes how we incorporated DE into the Jilinde Project, and shares experiences and lessons learned about the value of DE in PrEP service implementation in a real-world situation. With the Ministry of Health, Jilinde developed consensus about the structure and roll-out of PrEP services. The DE evaluator, embedded in Jilinde, designed and implemented the five-step DE methodology—collect, review, reflect, record and act—according to a core set of project guiding principles. The paper describes how we operationalized the five elements, citing findings reported and actions taken reflecting on the data. It summarizes challenges to DE implementation, such as uneven uptake and competing demands, and how we addressed those challenges. Used consistently, DE helped adapt and refine PrEP services, improve service access, reach target audiences and improve continuation rates. The look, feel and yield of our DE efforts evolved over time, increasingly integrated into existing systems and providing deeper and richer understandings, and we learned how to better implement DE in the future. This case study provides practical guidance for using a DE approach in program design. The DE process can be used successfully working with partners on a common complex public health challenge within a dynamic environment in a way that feeds back into and improves programs.

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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.512
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.078 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGates Open ResearchSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207