Exploring healthcare facilities’ readiness for standard precautions in infection prevention and control: a cross-country comparative analysis of six low- and middle-income countries using national cross-sectional surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the significant morbidity and mortality caused by healthcare-associated infections worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is a lack of understanding of the readiness to apply standard precautions for infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare facilities across different LMICs. Methods: We analysed nationally representative health system data from the Service Provision Assessment surveys for six selected LMICs - Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Nepal, Senegal, and Bangladesh. We recorded seven tracer items of standard precautions into binary elements. We calculated a readiness index based on the World Health Organization's Service Availability and Readiness Assessment manual. We utilised survey-weighted multivariable generalised estimating equations to identify factors associated with the readiness index. Results: Among 6054 healthcare facilities, 55% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 53.1, 56.5) of necessary standard precautions were available, ranging from 48.1% in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to 65% in Nepal. Readiness varied by service area, with the tuberculosis service area being the least prepared at 38% and the general outpatient service area being the most prepared at 66%. Facilities in Nepal and the urban regions showed higher readiness, with mean (x̄) differences of 16% (95% CI = 13.6, 17.9) and 3% (95% CI = 1.8, 4.9) compared to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and rural areas, respectively. Conclusions: We revealed significant deficiencies in standard precautions within healthcare facilities across six LMICs, notably in rural areas. The findings underscore an urgent need for targeted interventions to improve IPC strategies, particularly in domains like tuberculosis care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".