MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309927732 · doi:10.19088/sshap.2022.037

Key Considerations for RCCE in the 2022 Ebola Outbreak Response in Greater Kampala, Uganda

2022· report· en· W4309927732 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David Kaawa–Mafigiri, Megan Schmidt‐Sane, Tabitha Hrynick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of WaterlooLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceUNICEF
KeywordsPreparednessOutbreakCapital cityEbola virusChristian ministryPopulationTask forceGeographyOfficerGovernment (linguistics)MedicineSocioeconomicsPublic relationsPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthPublic administrationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 20 September 2022, an outbreak of the Sudan strain of Ebola Virus Disease – SVD – was announced as the first laboratory-confirmed patient was identified in a village in Mubende District in central Uganda. Uganda’s Ministry of Health (MoH) activated the National Task Force and developed and deployed a National Response Plan, which includes the activation of District Task Forces. The target areas include the epicentre (Mubende and Kassanda districts) and surrounding areas, as well as Masaka, Jinja and Kampala cities. This is of great concern, as Kampala is the capital city with a high population and linkages to neighbouring districts and international locations (via Entebbe Airport). It is also a serious matter given that there has been no outbreak of Ebola before in the city. This brief details how Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) activities and approaches can be adapted to reach people living in Greater Kampala to increase adoption of preventive behaviours and practices, early recognition of symptoms, care seeking and case reporting. The intended audiences include the National Task Force and District Task Forces in Kampala, Mukono, and Wakiso Districts, and other city-level RCCE practitioners and responders. The insights in this brief were collected from emergent on-the-ground observations from the current outbreak by embedded researchers, consultations with stakeholders, and a rapid review of relevant published and grey literature. This brief, requested by UNICEF Uganda, draws from the authors’ experience conducting social science research on Ebola preparedness and response in Uganda. It was written by David Kaawa-Mafigiri (Makerere University), Megan Schmidt-Sane (Institute of Development Studies (IDS)), and Tabitha Hrynick (IDS), with contributions from the MoH, UNICEF, the Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD), the Uganda Harm Reduction Network (UHRN), Population Council and CLEAR Global/Translators without Borders. It includes some material from a SSHAP brief developed by Anthrologica and the London School of Economics. It was reviewed by the Uganda MoH, University of Waterloo, Anthrologica, IDS and the RCCE Collective Service. This brief is the responsibility of SSHAP.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0140.010
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0110.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchFrench-language works237,207