Assessment of Patient Waiting Time in Primary Health Care Settings in Rwanda: A Mixed-Method Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patient waiting time as an important indicator of quality of services has been a long-standing concern in health care. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess patient waiting time in primary health care settings in Rwanda. Methods: This was a mixed-method study design. In quantitative phase, Patient Flow Time Log was used to track the time patients spent waiting for the service. On exit, a structured questionnaire was administered. Observations were conducted to capture information regarding the flow and processes. In qualitative part, six focus group discussions with patients were conducted. Semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers were held. Results: Among 410 participants, the majority were females (77.1%). The overall health centre level waiting time was 211 minutes (3.5 hours). To receive a service, patients waited an average of 81.5 minutes (1.4 hours). Three conceptual themes were identified: a) reported sections to have long wait time; b) causes of long waiting time; and c) needs for activities to spend time on as patients wait. Conclusion: Most patients experienced prolonged waiting times during their visit to the primary health care settings, and the major factors were the huge number of patients, few healthcare providers, and lack of medical equipment. To effectively address these challenges, more resources and personnel must be allocated to primary healthcare settings to help foster a higher level of client satisfaction with minimal primary healthcare waiting time.
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 | 0.019 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".