<i>Transfusion Camp Rwanda</i>: A prospective feasibility study evaluating the delivery of <i>Transfusion Camp</i> to a multidisciplinary group of postgraduate medical trainees in Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Safe blood transfusion is an increasing priority in global health equity. The Global Health 2030 commission lists access to a safe blood supply as essential for all surgical and nonoperative patients. The objective of this study was to determine if Transfusion Camp, when modified through a collaborative partnership between experts in Canada and Rwanda, results in improved knowledge and confidence among trainees in a resource-limited setting in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: This prospective study took place at The University Teaching Hospital of Kigali in Rwanda. Participants were postgraduate medical trainees from departments where blood transfusion is frequent. Participants watched five prerecorded lectures and then attended a 5-hour team-based learning seminar to consolidate learning. Pre- and post-data were analyzed on transfusion knowledge and trainee confidence. A Rasch analysis investigated the performance of individual questions in assessing respondent knowledge. RESULTS: Of 31 trainees from surgery, anesthesia, internal medicine, and pediatrics invited to the course, 27 trainees attended the in-person team-based learning and 24 trainees completed the pre- and post-course analysis. Trainee knowledge assessment improved from (mean ± SD) 7.7/20 ± 1.95 to 10.4/20 ± 2.4 (p < .0001) and this knowledge was maintained by 12 trainees on a 3-month follow-up with a mean score of 9.3/20 ± 2.3. Trainees reported increased confidence in managing transfusion medicine-related patient issues. CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrated that Transfusion Camp education content modified to the local context can result in increased knowledge and confidence in managing transfusion-related issues. These results will inform future planning of Transfusion Camp 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".