MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320494217 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1102507

Assessing capacities and resilience of health services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned from use of rapid key informant surveys

2023· article· en· W4320494217 on OpenAlexaff
Briana Rivas-Morello, Dirk Horemans, Kavitha Viswanathan, Chelsea Taylor, Andrea Katryn Blanchard, Humphrey Karamagi, Benson Droti, Regina Titi-Ofei, Laetitia Nikièma, Moussa Traoré, Hillary Kipruto, Amalia del Riego, Natalia Houghton, Hassan Salah, Deena Alasfoor, Henry V. Doctor, Ardita Tahirukaj, Florian Tille, Tomas Zapata, Kathryn O’Neill

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
FundersFogarty International CenterDirektoratet for UtviklingssamarbeidMinistère de l'Europe et des Affaires ÉtrangèresWorld Health Organization
KeywordsBusinessService delivery frameworkContext (archaeology)Survey data collectionService (business)Resilience (materials science)Process managementPublic relationsMarketingPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is part of the Research Topic: 'Health Systems Recovery in the Context of COVID-19 and Protracted Conflict.' Problem: Many countries lacked rapid and nimble data systems to track health service capacities to respond to COVID-19. They struggled to assess and monitor rapidly evolving service disruptions, health workforce capacities, health products availability, community needs and perspectives, and mitigation responses to maintain essential health services. Method: Building on established methodologies, the World Health Organization developed a suite of methods and tools to support countries to rapidly fill data gaps and guide decision-making during COVID-19. The tools included: (1) a national "pulse" survey on service disruptions and bottlenecks; (2) a phone-based facility survey on frontline service capacities; and (3) a phone-based community survey on demand-side challenges and health needs. Use: Three national pulse surveys revealed persisting service disruptions throughout 2020-2021 (97 countries responded to all three rounds). Results guided mitigation strategies and operational plans at country level, and informed investments and delivery of essential supplies at global level. Facility and community surveys in 22 countries found similar disruptions and limited frontline service capacities at a more granular level. Findings informed key actions to improve service delivery and responsiveness from local to national levels. Lessons learned: The rapid key informant surveys provided a low-resource way to collect action-oriented health services data to inform response and recovery from local to global levels. The approach fostered country ownership, stronger data capacities, and integration into operational planning. The surveys are being evaluated to inform integration into country data systems to bolster routine health services monitoring and serve as health services alert functions for the future.

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)0.139
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.210
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1390.210
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchFrench-language works237,207