A survey of barriers and facilitators to ultrasound use in low- and middle-income countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Point-of-care ultrasound has the potential to help inform assessment, diagnosis, and management of illness in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). To better understand current ultrasound use, barriers and facilitators to use, and perceptions and practices in LMIC, we conducted an anonymous online global survey targeting healthcare providers training and using ultrasound in LMIC. A total of 241 respondents representing 62 countries participated and most were physicians working in publicly-funded urban tertiary hospitals in LMIC. Most had received ultrasound training (78%), reported expertise (65%) and confidence (90%) in ultrasound use, and had access to ultrasound (88%), utilizing ultrasound most commonly for procedures and for evaluations of lungs, heart, and trauma. Access to an ultrasound machine was reported as both the top barrier (17%) and top facilitator (53%); other common barriers included access to education and training, cost, and competition for use and other common facilitators included access to a probe, gel, and electricity, and acceptance by healthcare providers, administrators, and patients. Most (80%) noted ultrasound access was important and 96% agreed that ultrasound improves quality of care and patient outcomes. Improving access to low-cost ultrasound equipment is critical to increasing ultrasound use among those who are trained.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it