MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6957607423 · doi:10.60692/brdv4-2jv28

Task shifting for cataract surgery in eastern Africa: productivity and attrition of non-physician cataract surgeons in Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania

2014· article· en· W6957607423 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTanzaniaAttritionCataract surgeryProductivityPopulationPrivate sectorQuality (philosophy)Workforce

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project examined the surgical productivity and attrition of non-physician cataract surgeons (NPCSs) in Tanzania, Malawi, and Kenya.Baseline (2008-9) data on training, support, and productivity (annual cataract surgery rate) were collected from officially trained NPCSs using mailed questionnaires followed by telephone interviews. Telephone interviews were used to collect follow-up data annually on productivity and semi-annually on attrition. A detailed telephone interview was conducted if a surgeon left his/her post. Data were entered into and analysed using STATA.Among the 135 NPCSs, 129 were enrolled in the study (Kenya 88, Tanzania 38, and Malawi 3) mean age 42 years; average time since completing training 6.6 years. Employment was in District 44%, Regional 24% or mission/ private 32% hospitals. Small incision cataract surgery was practiced by 38% of the NPCSs. The mean cataract surgery rate was 188/year, median 76 (range 0-1700). For 39 (31%) NPCSs their surgical rate was more than 200/year. Approximately 22% in Kenya and 25% in Tanzania had years where the cataract surgical rate was zero. About 11% of the surgeons had no support staff.High quality training is necessary but not sufficient to result in cataract surgical activity that meets population needs and maintains surgical skill. Needed are supporting institutions and staff, functioning equipment and programs to recruit and transport patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicIntraocular Surgery and LensesFrench-language works237,207