Decentralising diabetes care from hospitals to primary health care centres in Malawi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as diabetes and hypertension have become a prominent public health concern in Malawi, where health care services for NCDs are generally restricted to urban centres and district hospitals, while the vast majority of Malawians live in rural settings. Whether similar quality of diabetes care can be delivered at health centres compared to hospitals is not known. METHODS: We implemented a pilot project of decentralized diabetes care at eight health centres in four districts in Malawi. We described differences between district hospitals and rural health centres in terms of patient characteristics, diabetes complications, cardiovascular risk factors, and aspects of the quality of care and used multivariate logistic regression to explore factors associated with adequate diabetes and blood pressure control. RESULTS: By March 2019, 1339 patients with diabetes were registered of whom 286 (21%) received care at peripheral health centres. The median duration of care of patients in the diabetes clinics during the study period was 8.8 months. Overall, HIV testing coverage was 93.6%, blood pressure was recorded in 92.4%; 68.5% underwent foot examination of whom 35.0% had diabetic complications; 30.1% underwent fundoscopy of whom 15.6% had signs of diabetic retinopathy. No significant differences in coverage of testing for diabetes complications were observed between health facility types. Neither did we find significant differences in retention in care (72.1 vs. 77.6%; p=0.06), adequate diabetes control (35.0% vs. 37.8%; p=0.41) and adequate blood pressure control (51.3% vs. 49.8%; p=0.66) between hospitals and health centres. In multivariate analysis, male sex was associated with adequate diabetes control, while lower age and normal body mass index were associated with adequate blood pressure control; health facility type was not associated with either. CONCLUSION: Quality of care did not appear to differ between hospitals and health centres, but was insufficient at both levels.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".