Strengthening health service delivery and governance through institutionalizing ‘Urban Health Atlas’—A geo-referenced Information Communication and Technology tool: Lessons learned from an implementation research in three cities in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Urban health governance in Bangladesh is complex as multiple actors are involved and no comprehensive data are currently available on infrastructure, services, or performance either in public and private sectors of the healthcare system. The Urban Health Atlas (UHA)-a novel and interactive geo-referenced, web-based visualization tool was developed in Bangladesh to provide geospatial and service information to decision makers involved in urban health service planning and governance. Our objective was to study the opportunities for institutionalization of the UHA into government health systems responsible for urban healthcare delivery and document the facilitators and barriers to its uptake. METHODS: This implementation research was carried out during 2017-2019 in three cities in Bangladesh: Dhaka, Dinajpur and Jashore. During the intervention period, six hands-on trainings on UHA were provided to 67 urban health managers across three study sites. Thirty in-depth and twelve key informant interviews were conducted to understand user experience and document stakeholder perceptions of institutionalizing UHA. RESULTS: Capacity building on UHA enhanced understanding of health managers around its utility for service delivery planning, decision making and oversight. Findings from the IDIs and KIIs suggest that UHA uptake was challenged by inadequate ICT infrastructure, shortage of human resources and lack of ICT skill among managers. Motivating key decision makers and stakeholders about the potential of UHA and engaging them from its inception helped the institutionalization process. CONCLUSION: While uptake of UHA by government health managers appears possible with dedicated capacity building initiatives, its use and regular update are challenged by multiple factors at the implementation level. A clear understanding of context, actors and system readiness is foundational in determining whether the institutionalization of health ICTs is timely, realistic or relevant.
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 | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".