Prevalence and correlates of paediatric guideline non-adherence for initial empirical care in six low and middle-income settings: a hospital-based cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the prevalence and correlates of guideline non-adherence for common childhood illnesses in low-resource settings. DESIGN AND SETTING: We used secondary cross-sectional data from eight healthcare facilities in six Asian and African countries. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2796 children aged 2-23 months hospitalised between November 2016 and January 2019 with pneumonia, diarrhoea or severe malnutrition (SM) and without HIV infection were included in this study. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We identified children treated with full, partial or non-adherent initial inpatient care according to site-specific standard-of-care guidelines for pneumonia, diarrhoea and SM within the first 24 hours of admission. Correlates of guideline non-adherence were identified using generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: Fully adherent care was delivered to 32% of children admitted with diarrhoea, 34% of children with pneumonia and 28% of children with SM when a strict definition of adherence was applied. Non-adherence to recommendations was most common for oxygen and antibiotics for pneumonia; fluid, zinc and antibiotics for diarrhoea; and vitamin A and zinc for SM. Non-adherence varied by site. Pneumonia guideline non-adherence was more likely among patients with severe disease (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.38, 2.34) compared with non-severe disease. Diarrhoea guideline non-adherence was more likely among lower asset quintile groups (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.01, 1.35), older children (OR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06, 1.13) and children presenting with wasting (OR 6.44; 95% CI 4.33, 9.57) compared with those with higher assets, younger age and not wasted. CONCLUSIONS: Non-adherence to paediatric guidelines was common and associated with older age, disease severity, and comorbidities, and lower household economic status. These findings highlight opportunities to improve guidelines by adding clarity to specific recommendations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".