Clinical Data Flow in Botswana Clinics: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Botswana has made significant investments in its health care information infrastructure, including vertical programs for child health and nutrition, HIV care, and tuberculosis. However, effectively integrating the more than 18 systems in place for data collection and reporting has proved to be challenging. The Botswana Health Data Collaborative Roadmap Strategy (2020-24) states that "there exists parallel reporting systems and data is not integrated into the mainstream reports at the national level," seconded by the Botswana National eLearning strategy (2020), which states that "there is inadequate information flow at all levels, proliferation of systems, reporting tools are not synthesized; hence too many systems are not communicating." OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to (1) create a visual representation of how data are processed and the inputs and outputs through each health care system level; (2) understand how frontline workers perceive health care data sharing across existing platforms and the impact of data on health care service delivery. METHODS: The setting included a varied range of 30 health care facilities across Botswana, aiming to capture insights from multiple perspectives into data flow and system integration challenges. The study design combined qualitative and quantitative methodologies, informed by the rapid assessment process and the technology assessment model for resource limited settings. The study used a participatory research approach to ensure comprehensive stakeholder engagement from its inception. Survey instruments were designed to capture the intricacies of data processing, sharing, and integration among health care workers. A purposive sampling strategy was used to ensure a wide representation of participants across different health care roles and settings. Data collection used both digital surveys and in-depth interviews. Preliminary themes for analysis include perceptions of the value of health care data and experiences in data collection and sharing. Ethical approvals were comprehensively obtained, reflecting the commitment to uphold research integrity and participant welfare throughout the study. RESULTS: The study recruited almost 44 health care facilities, spanning a variety of health care facilities. Of the 44 recruited facilities, 27 responded to the surveys and participated in the interviews. A total of 75% (112/150) of health care professionals participating came from clinics, 20% (30/150) from hospitals, and 5% (8/150) from health posts and mobile clinics. As of October 10, 2023, the study had collected over 200 quantitative surveys and conducted 90 semistructured interviews. CONCLUSIONS: This study has so far shown enthusiastic engagement from the health care community, underscoring the relevance and necessity of this study's objectives. We believe the methodology, centered around extensive community engagement, is pivotal in capturing a nuanced understanding of the health care data ecosystem. The focus will now shift to the analysis phase of the study, with the aim of developing comprehensive recommendations for improving data flow within Botswana's health care system. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52411.
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 | 0.120 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.015 |
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".