MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3134226126 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-222720/v1

Inequalities in Access to Tuberculosis Services in South Africa: Does Gender Matter?

2021· preprint· en· W3134226126 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mina Haji, Susan Cleary

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsInequalityTuberculosisGender inequalityGeographyMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Tuberculosis (TB) remains the leading cause of death in South Africa. As an infectious respiratory disease, control of TB includes antibiotic treatment over a number of months in order to cure the disease and reduce transmission to others. The need to adhere to treatment over an extended period highlights the importance of reducing access barriers to TB services. While gender related access barriers have been identified as critical in the treatment and control of other conditions such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), no quantitative analyses currently exist that assess the gender-related dimensions of access to TB services in South Africa. Methods: This study aims to assess the gender-based differences in access to TB services in South Africa, from the perspective of TB patients. Using a comprehensive framework where access is defined as the opportunity to use services, we interviewed 1,229 TB patients using services in four provinces of South Africa. Comparisons of access barriers and adherence between men and women were examined using multivariate linear and logistic regressions.Results: There was no significant association between levels of adherence and gender (all p-values>0.05). Among availability-related variables, men spent significantly less time at the clinic to fetch TB medication compared with women (coefficient, -7.06; 95% CI, [-13.5, -0.7]). Regarding affordability, men were significantly less likely to receive a disability grant (AOR, 0.48; 95% CI, [0.36, 0.63]). Concerning the acceptability dimension, men were less likely to report that queues to visit a healthcare provider were too long or the cleanliness of the facility to be sub-standard (AOR, 0.69; 95% CI, [0.52, 0.91], and AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, [0.46, 0.97], respectively). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that there is no association between the level of adherence to TB treatment and gender. Moreover, there was no evidence of systematic gender-based inequalities in access to TB services. However, the findings reveal concerns about the condition and cleanliness of health facilities that may impact the patients' adherence and be a barrier, specifically, in women's use of TB 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicGlobal Health Workforce Issues→French-language works237,207→