Capacity to provide care for common childhood infections at low-level private health facilities in Western, Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-level private health facilities (LLPHFs) handle a considerable magnitude of sick children in low-resource countries. We assessed capacity of LLPHFs to manage malaria, pneumonia, diarrhea, and, possible severe bacterial infections (PSBIs) in under-five-year-olds.We conducted a cross-sectional survey in 110 LLPHFs and 129 health workers in Mbarara District, Uganda between May and December 2019. Structured questionnaires and observation forms were used to collect data on availability of treatment guidelines, vital medicines, diagnostics, and equipment; health worker qualifications; and knowledge of management of common childhood infections.Amoxicillin was available in 97%, parental ampicillin and gentamicin in 77%, zinc tablets and oral rehydration salts in >90% while artemether-lumefantrine was available in 96% of LLPHF. About 66% of facilities stocked loperamide, a drug contraindicated in the management of diarrhoea in children. Malaria rapid diagnostic tests and microscopes were available in 86% of the facilities, timers/clocks in 57% but only 19% of the facilities had weighing scales and 6% stocked oxygen. Only 4% of the LLPHF had integrated management of childhood illness (IMCI) booklets and algorithm charts for management of common childhood illnesses. Of the 129 health workers, 52% were certificate nurses/midwives and (26% diploma nurses/clinical officers; 57% scored averagely for knowledge on management of common childhood illnesses. More than a quarter (38%) of nursing assistants had low knowledge scores. No notable significant differences existed between rural and urban LLPHFs in most parameters assessed.Vital first-line medicines for treatment of common childhood illnesses were available in most of the LLPHFs but majority lacked clinical guidelines and very few had oxygen. Majority of health workers had low to average knowledge on management of the common childhood illnesses. There is need for innovative knowledge raising interventions in LLPHFs including refresher trainings, peer support supervision and provision of job aides.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".