Health facility capacity and technical efficiency in the provision of adolescent sexual and reproductive health services in Niger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efficiency in the use of financial and other resources for providing adolescent sexual and reproductive health (ASRH) policies and programs is an important factor that can affect provision of and access to services in resource-constrained contexts of developing countries with limited capacity. However, very few studies have been conducted to understand this situation. Our study, therefore, estimated technical efficiency scores for health facilities that offer primary ASRH care services in Niger and the relationship between the capacity of these health facilities and their level of technical efficiency. METHODS: The data used for this study were collected from a survey of 71 primary healthcare facilities providing ASRH in Niger from January 28 to March 15, 2022. A stochastic frontier analysis technique based on the Cobb-Douglas production function specification was used for analysis. A Tobit model estimation was used to examine the relationship between health facility capacity and the level of technical efficiency. RESULTS: The average technical efficiency in production of primary care ASRH services of the health facilities in the sample was 58% implying high levels of technical inefficiency. Disaggregated analysis revealed that the average score was greater in health facilities where the primary caretaker or head of the institution was female (60%) rather than male (53%). Primary healthcare facility capacity was assessed in four dimensions of operational capacity, managerial capacity, adaptive capacity and leadership capacity. There was a positive association between health facility capacity and the technical efficiency score. However, the levels of association differed from one dimension of health facility capacity to another. CONCLUSIONS: There is much room for improving the efficient use of financial and other resources in primary healthcare facilities that provide ASRH in Niger. Potential interventions include giving women more responsibility for these facilities and strengthening the ASRH production capacity of these facilities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".