In situ clinical education of frontline healthcare providers in under-resourced areas: A rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Rural communities are geographically isolated from large urban areas, affecting access to definitive care, specialists and other health services that only service urban areas. Rural decision-makers are often faced with numerous challenges regarding the availability, capacity, sustainability and performance of health systems in rural and remote areas. We evaluated the current body of literature on educational initiatives being used in under-resourced areas to increase the knowledge or skills of healthcare workers. This rapid review followed the methods laid out by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group and included published articles from any of three databases that described and evaluated an educational intervention, in which healthcare workers were the learners and which took place in an under-resourced area. Papers were excluded if they were deemed to be too resource intensive, were an opinion or concept paper or took place in an urban area. Results were synthesised descriptively. Ten studies were identified that contained information on educational initiatives in a variety of countries. The healthcare workers targeted in the studies varied from physicians, nurses and midwives to community health workers and students. The quality of studies also varied and included randomised control trials, systematic reviews and both prospective and retrospective studies. Initiatives involving simulation or point-of-care ultrasound were most common and showed the most benefit to a learner's knowledge and skill development. A limited body of literature exists on educational initiatives for healthcare workers in under-resourced areas. While simulation and hands-on learning showed positive results, the opportunity remains for a low-cost, high-yield educational initiative tailored to the unique needs of healthcare workers in under-resourced areas.Les communautés rurales sont géographiquement isolées des grandes zones urbaines, ce qui affecte l'accès à des soins définitifs, à des spécialistes et à d'autres services de santé qui ne desservent que les zones urbaines. Les décideurs ruraux sont souvent confrontés à de nombreux défis concernant la disponibilité, la capacité, la durabilité et la performance des systèmes de santé dans les zones rurales et éloignées. Nous avons évalué l'ensemble de la littérature actuelle sur les initiatives éducatives utilisées dans les zones sous-dotées pour améliorer les connaissances ou les compétences des travailleuses et travailleurs de la santé. Cette examen rapide a suivi les méthodes définies par le Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group et a inclus des articles publiés dans l'une des trois bases de données qui décrivaient et évaluaient une intervention éducative dans laquelle les travailleuses et travailleurs de la santé étaient les apprenants et qui SE déroulait dans une zone manquant de ressources. Des articles jugés trop gourmands en ressources, des opinions, des documents conceptuels ou en lien avec des zones urbaines, ont été exclus. Les résultats ont été synthétisés de manière descriptive. 10 études ont été identifiées, contenant des informations sur des initiatives éducatives dans divers pays. Les travailleurs de la santé ciblés dans les études variaient des médecins, des infirmières et des sages-femmes aux travailleurs de la santé communautaire et aux étudiants. La qualité des études était également variable et comprenait des essais contrôlés randomisés, des revues systématiques et des études prospectives et rétrospectives. Les initiatives impliquant la simulation ou le POCUS étaient les plus courantes et présentaient le plus d'avantages pour le développement des connaissances et des compétences de l'apprenant. Il existe un nombre limité de documents sur les initiatives éducatives destinées aux travailleurs de la santé dans les zones sous-dotées. Bien que la simulation et l'apprentissage pratique aient donné des résultats positifs, il est toujours possible de mettre en place une initiative éducative peu coûteuse et à haut rendement, adaptée aux besoins spécifiques des travailleuses et travailleurs de la santé dans les zones sous-dotées.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".