Health care providers’ and persons with disabilities’ recommendations for improving access to primary health care services in rural northern Ghana: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ghana, many persons with physical disabilities are members of populations who face health disparities including physical, structural, knowledge, attitudinal and financial barriers to various health care services compared to those without disabilities. However, there is limited evidence on how to improve access to primary health care services for persons with physical disabilities. This study aimed to understand persons with physical disabilities' experiences and health care providers' perspectives for improving access to primary health care for persons with disabilities in rural Ghana. We used a qualitative approach and interviewed 33 persons with physical disabilities and health care providers, and thematically analysed data from in-depth interviews. We identified 4 major themes. According to the participants, health care could be more accessible by: i) Making it more affordable; ii) Increasing the availability of providers and services; iii) Providing more education about system navigation; and iv) Improving access to disability friendly health facilities and equipment. Participants' recommendations were nested in the areas of policy and practice modifications. Policy makers need to consider supporting persons with physical disabilities who cannot afford non-medical services (i.e., cost of transportation). In terms of practice, the provision of education and training related to physical disability issues should be extended to both clinical and nonclinical health workers for better client centered care. There is an urgent need for policy makers and relevant key stakeholders to include persons with physical disabilities in designing and implementing policies and programs to ensure that they are meeting their needs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".