MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399088446 · doi:10.5334/aogh.4424

Occupational Health Barriers in South Africa: A Call for Ubuntu

2024· article· en· W4399088446 on OpenAlexaff
Muzimkhulu Zungu, Jerry Spiegel, Annalee Yassi, Dingani Moyo, Kuku Voyi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Global Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthBusinessMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) grapple with shortages of health workers, a crucial component of robust health systems. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the imperative for appropriate staffing of health systems and the occupational health (OH) threats to health workers. Issues related to accessibility, coverage, and utilization of OH services in public sector health facilities within LMICs were particularly accentuated during the pandemic. This paper draws on the observations and experiences of researchers engaged in an international collaboration to consider how the South African concept of Ubuntu provides a promising way to understand and address the challenges encountered in establishing and sustaining OH services in public sector health facilities. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the collaborators actively participated in implementing and studying OH and infection prevention and control measures for health workers in South Africa and internationally as part of the World Health Organizations' Collaborating Centres for Occupational Health. The study identified obstacles in establishing, providing, maintaining and sustaining such measures during the pandemic. These challenges were attributed to lack of leadership/stewardship, inadequate use of intelligence systems for decision-making, ineffective health and safety committees, inactive trade unions, and the strain on occupational health professionals who were incapacitated and overworked. These shortcomings are, in part, linked to the absence of the Ubuntu philosophy in implementation and sustenance of OH services in LMICs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.191
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.371 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Global HealthSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207