From Real-world Individuals’ Data to National Health Indicators: Multiphase Pilot Study in Gabon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Achieving health goals requires informed decision-making supported by transparent, reliable, and relevant health information. This helps decision makers, such as health managers, to better understand the functioning of their health system and improve their ability to respond quickly to health demands. To achieve this, the health system needs to be supported by a digitized decision-making information system. In Sub-Saharan African countries, inadequate digital infrastructure, including limited internet connectivity and insufficient access to appropriate computer software, makes it difficult to collect, process, and analyze data for health statistics. The processing of data is done manually in this case; however, this situation affects the quality of the health statistics produced and compromises the quality of health intervention choices in these countries. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the conceptual approach of a data production and dissemination platform model proposed and implemented in Gabon. More precisely, it aimed to present the approach applied for the multidimensional analysis of the data production and dissemination process in the existing information system and present the results of an evaluation of the proposed model implemented in a real context. METHODS: The research was carried out in 3 phases. First, a platform was designed and developed based on the examination of the various data production and indicator generation procedures. Then, the platform was implemented in chosen health facilities in Gabon. Finally, a platform evaluation was carried out with actual end users. RESULTS: A total of 14 users with 12 years of average experience in health data management were interviewed. The results show that the use of the proposed model significantly improved the completeness, timeliness, and accuracy of data compared with the traditional system (93% vs 12%, P<.001; 96% vs 18%, P<.001; and 100% vs 18%, P<.001; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed model contributes significantly to the improvement of health data quality in Gabon.
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 | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".