MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381682871 · doi:10.7759/cureus.40761

Laparoscopy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Survey Study

2023· article· en· W4381682871 on OpenAlex
Omaid Tanoli, Hamza Ahmad, Haider Ali Khan, Awais Khan, Zoha Aftab, Mashal I Khan, Etienne St‐Louis, Tanya Chen, Kathryn LaRusso

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLaparoscopic surgeryHealth careCurriculumMedical educationNursingLaparoscopySurgeryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: An increasing shift towards non-communicable diseases and an existing high surgical burden of disease in low-middle-income countries (LMICs) has impelled the need for implementing laparoscopic surgery, a safe and cost-effective surgical service. However, despite countless benefits, laparoscopic surgery programs remain limited throughout LMICs, and limited understanding is known of healthcare professionals' views regarding the implementation of laparoscopic surgery in their local healthcare environments. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to better understand the perceived challenges and barriers to implementing long-term laparoscopic surgery programs from the perspective of healthcare professionals. METHODS: Upon receiving ethical approval from the McGill University Health Center (MUHC), a nine-question survey (concerning attributes required to establish a successful laparoscopic program in LMICs and to gain insight into what surgeons from LMICs believed were the necessary next steps) was pilot tested amongst faculty members, and subsequently disseminated to healthcare professionals practicing in LMICs. Explicit consent was obtained from the participants before answering the survey. Results: Thirty-four participants representing a total of 35 countries participated in the survey with the majority having received laparoscopic surgery training. Overall, participant responses were characterized by two major themes. Highlighted in the first theme, Laparoscopic Experience and Training Curriculum, were responses concerning current laparoscopic training and education, improved career opportunities provided by laparoscopic training, and a particular existing potential to incorporate laparoscopic surgery into the current surgical curriculum at various levels of training. Emphasized in the second theme, Challenges and Next Steps, were responses concerning barriers to the implementation of laparoscopic surgery, current institutional capabilities, and the need for improving mentorship through existing surgical societies such as the College of Surgeons of East, Central, and Southern Africa (COSECSA), West African College of Surgeons (WACS), and The Pan-African Academy of Christian Surgeons (PAACS). CONCLUSIONS: A buy-in from the government, hospitals, staff, and industry is crucial for the long-term implementation of laparoscopic surgery in LMICs, which can only be accomplished through increased advocacy and the dissemination of the benefits of minimally invasive surgery both economically and socially.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.303 · 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