Beyond the regulatory radar: knowledge and practices of rural medical practitioners in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Informal and unregulated rural medical practitioners (RMPs) provide healthcare services to about two-thirds of people in Bangladesh, although their service is assumed to be substandard by qualified providers. As the RMPs are embedded in the local community and provide low-cost services, their practice pattern demands investigation to identify the shortfalls and design effective strategies to ameliorate the service. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study in 2015–16 using a convenient sample from all 64 districts of Bangladesh. Personnel practising modern medicine, without any recognized training, or with recognized training but practising outside their defined roles, and without any regulatory oversight were invited to take part in the study. Appropriateness of the diagnosis and the rationality of antibiotic and other drug use were measured as per the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness guideline. Results We invited 1004 RMPs, of whom 877 consented. Among them, 656 (74.8%) RMPs owned a drugstore, 706 (78.2%) had formal education below higher secondary level, and 844 (96.2%) had informal training outside regulatory oversight during or after induction into the profession. The most common diseases encountered by them were common cold, pneumonia, and diarrhoea. 583 (66.5%) RMPs did not dispense any antibiotic for common cold symptoms. 59 (6.7%) and 64 (7.3%) of them could identify all main symptoms of pneumonia and diarrhoea, respectively. In pneumonia, 28 (3.2%) RMPs dispensed amoxicillin as first-line treatment, 819 (93.4%) dispensed different antibiotics including ceftriaxone, 721 (82.2%) dispensed salbutamol, and 278 (31.7%) dispensed steroid. In diarrhoea, 824 (94.0%) RMPs dispensed antibiotic, 937 (95.4%) dispensed ORS, 709 (80.8%) dispensed antiprotozoal, and 15 (1.7%) refrained from dispensing antibiotic and antiprotozoal together. Conclusions Inappropriate diagnoses, irrational use of antibiotics and other drugs, and polypharmacy were observed in the practising pattern of RMPs. The government and other stakeholders should acknowledge them as crucial partners in the healthcare sector and consider ways to incorporate them into curative and preventive 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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".