Knowledge and perceptions of lymphatic filariasis patients in selected hotspot endemic communities in southern Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is a mosquito-borne neglected tropical disease that is one of the leading global causes of permanent disability. To date, LF interventions have been largely biomedical, focusing on drug treatments to disrupt parasite transmission and manage disease morbidity. Although important, these Mass Drug Administration (MDA) programs neglect the significance of socio-economic burden to the health of LF patients, which are compounded by social stigmatization, discrimination and associated depressive illnesses. The MDA program also typically fails to engage with local community beliefs and perceptions of LF, which may differ markedly from biomedical explanations and may have fueled non-compliance to treatments which is one of the major challenges of the Mass Drug Administration program. LF is not only a biomedical issue but also a social issue and LF interventions need to understand people's world views and the contexts through which they interpret bodily maladies. Hence, an effective LF intervention must bring together both the biomedical and the social components. The goal of this exploratory study was to assist in refining a large qualitative study (currently underway) that seeks to integrate culturally appropriate LF interventions into current LF control programs in Ghana. In this paper, we discuss the findings of a pre-intervention, exploratory study aimed at gaining a baseline grasp of a local culturally informed understanding of lymphatic filariasis and the knowledge gaps looking at three endemic Ghanaian communities in the Ahanta West District. A structured questionnaire was employed to assess the wellbeing, social inclusion, and cultural understanding of LF with a geographic focus within LF-endemic areas in Ghana. Interestingly, 45.8% of the 72 participants reported to have received information about LF from health care providers and the MDA program but only 5 out of the 72 (6.9%) respondents believed that LF was transmitted by mosquitos. This baseline study revealed several alternative interpretations and misconceptions about the disease, as well as the social and economic impacts, and importantly, the need to integrate qualitative research to develop culturally appropriate interventions and increase engagement with existing control programs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".