Acceptability of Phone-Based Communication Intervention by Healthcare Workers as an Adjunct to Routine Referral Form: A Qualitative Study in South Western Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A functional maternal referral system should encompass a feasible communication system between health facilities. In Uganda, the current paper-based patient referral form is associated with inadequate patient-information and low feedback rates. A recent quasi-experimental study demonstrated that a phone-based communication intervention is feasible for iterative communication between health facilities, and there were improved maternal-fetal outcomes and high rates of feedback. However, the acceptability of the intervention was not assessed. Objective: The study assessed the acceptability of a phone-based communication intervention by the health care workers (HCWs) for iterative communication between the referring and receiving health facilities. Methods: This was a qualitative study conducted in South Western Uganda, in April 2021. The study employed a theoretical framework of acceptability of medical interventions. We conducted in-depth interviews with HCWs and used deductive-inductive analysis. Results: We enrolled a total of 23 HCWs, of whom 69.6% (n = 16) were females while 30.4% (n = 7) were males. Majority (65.2%, n = 15), were midwives and the rest were: doctors (30.4%, n = 7) and a nurse (4.3%). The HCWs were positive towards the intervention: they believed that the intervention reduced delays, promoted professional escort, encouraged sharing of supplies, enabled exchange of relatively more patient details, feedback and improved case management. They believed it was culturally acceptable and had enough skills and experience of operating phones. All participants recommended scale out of the intervention, but advised on the need for dedicated human-resource to coordinate phone calls, ensure availability of airtime and charged battery. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the phone-based communication intervention was highly accepted by the healthcare workers, and that hospitals can successfully give feedback to lower health centres through iterative phone calls. This provides a possible solution to the long-standing challenge of poor feedback rates and a vicious cycle of poor maternal-fetal outcomes in resource limited settings.
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 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 | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".