‘My feet cannot stand on their own’: podoconiosis patient healthcare expenditures and income impacts in Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Podoconiosis is a progressive and debilitating form of tropical lymphoedema endemic to Rwanda. Although the physical and psychological consequences are well known, few studies have evaluated the financial burden of podoconiosis. METHODS: This cross-sectional, quantitative study aimed to characterize direct treatment costs and impacts on annual earnings among individuals living with podoconiosis. Participants from two highly endemic districts were invited to complete a survey focused on health-seeking history, insurance status, out-of-pocket costs and income changes. Direct treatment costs included medical expenditures (consultation, diagnostics, medication) and non-medical expenditures (food, transportation, accommodation). RESULTS: Overall, 226 adults (≥18 y of age) diagnosed with podoconiosis participated. Most had access to community-based health insurance (91.6%) but were unable to work (71.7%). Respondents sought care from health centres/posts (61.9%), hospitals (25.1%), traditional healers (5.8%) and/or community health workers (4.0%). On average, study participants paid US$32.50 (range US$0-779.23) annually, or 11.7% of their household salary, on podoconiosis treatments. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the significant financial burden of podoconiosis on individuals and their communities. Increased attention on integrating podoconiosis management into primary care systems and testing cost-effective solutions is needed to protect those who are most vulnerable.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".