Barriers and facilitators to community acceptability of integrating point-of-care testing to screen for sickle cell disease in children in primary healthcare settings in rural Upper East Region of Northern Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sickle cell disease (SCD) remains a public health problem especially in sub-Saharan Africa including Ghana. While pilot initiatives in Africa have demonstrated that neonatal screening coupled with early intervention reduces SCD-related morbidity and mortality, only 50-70% of screen-positive babies have been successfully retrieved to benefit from these interventions. Point-of-care testing (POCT) with high specificity and sensitivity for SCD screening can be integrated into existing immunization programs in Africa to improve retrieval rates. This study explored community acceptability of integrating POCT to screen for SCD in children under 5 years of age in primary healthcare facilities in Northern Ghana. METHOD: This was an exploratory study using qualitative research approach where 10 focus group discussions and 20 in-depth interviews were conducted with community members and health workers between April and June 2022. The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim after repeatedly listening to the recordings. Data was coded into themes using QSR Nvivo 12 software before thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most participants (70.9%) described SCD as serious and potentially life-threatening condition affecting children in the area. Of 148 community members and health workers, 141 (95.2%) said the screening exercise could facilitate diagnosis of SCD in children for early management. However, discrimination, fear of being tested positive, stigmatization, negative health worker attitude linked with issues of maintaining confidentiality were reported by participants as key factors that could affect uptake of the SCD screening exercise. Most participants suggested that intensive health education (78.3%), positive attitude of health workers (69.5%), and screening health workers not being biased (58.8%) could promote community acceptability. CONCLUSION: A large majority of participants viewed screening of SCD in children as very important. However, opinions expressed by most participants suggest that health education and professionalism of health workers in keeping patients' information confidential could improve the uptake of the exercise.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".