MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4286511199 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051838

Establishing a baseline for surgical care in Mongolia: a situational analysis using the six indicators from the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery

2022· article· en· W4286511199 on OpenAlexaff
Jade Nunez, Jonathan Nellermoe, Andrea Davis, Simon Ruhnke, Battsetseg Gonchigjav, Nomindari Bat-Erdene, Anudari Zorigtbaatar, Ali Jalali, K.Q. Bagley, Micah G. Katz, Hannah Pioli, Batsaikhan Bat‐Erdene, Sarnai Erdene, Sergelen Orgoi, Raymond R. Price, Ganbold Lundeg

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCommissionBaseline (sea)Situational ethicsGeneral surgerySurgeryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Commission on Global Surgery were collected for the Mongolian surgical system. This situational analysis shows one lower middle-income country's ability to collect the indicators aided by a well-developed health information system. DESIGN: An 11-year retrospective analysis of the Mongolian surgical system using data from the Health Development Center, National Statistics Office and Household Socio-Economic Survey. Access estimates were based on travel time to capable hospitals. Provider density, surgical volume and postoperative mortality were calculated at national and regional levels. Protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditures was assessed against standard out-of-pocket expenditure at government hospitals for individual operations. SETTING: Mongolia's 81 public hospitals with surgical capability, including tertiary, secondary and primary/secondary facilities. PARTICIPANTS: All operative patients in Mongolia's public hospitals, 2006-2016. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were national-level results of the indicators. Secondary outcomes include regional access; surgeons, anaesthesiologists and obstetricians (SAO) density; surgical volume; and perioperative mortality. RESULTS: In 2016, 80.1% of the population had 2-hour access to essential surgery, including 60% of those outside the capital. SAO density was 47.4/100 000 population. A coding change increased surgical volume to 5784/100 000 population, and in-hospital mortality decreased from 0.27% to 0.14%. All households were financially protected from caesarean section. Appendectomy carried 99.4% and 98.4% protection, external femur fixation carried 75.4% and 50.7% protection from impoverishing and catastrophic expenditures, respectively. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy carried 42.9% protection from both. CONCLUSIONS: Mongolia meets national benchmarks for access, provider density, surgical volume and postoperative mortality with notable limitations. Significant disparities exist between regions. Unequal access may be efficiently addressed by strengthening or building key district hospitals in population-dense areas. Increased financial protections are needed for operations involving hardware or technology. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will support the development of context-specific interventions to improve surgical care in Mongolia.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicGlobal Health and Surgery→French-language works237,207→