Child disability and family-centred care in East Africa: Perspectives from a workshop with stakeholders and health practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our understanding of child disability has undergone major changes over the last three decades transforming our approach to assessment and management. Globally there are significant gaps in the application of these 21st century models of care. There is recognition that economic, cultural, and social factors influence transitions in care and there is need to consider contextual factors.A two-day workshop brought together key stakeholders to discuss current models of care and their application in the East African context. This article summarises workshop proceedings and identifies a broadly supported set of recommendations that serve to set a direction for health professionals, families, family-based disability organisations, communities and government.Presentations followed by facilitated round-table sessions explored specific themes with participants reporting their responses communally. Future actions were agreed upon by relevant stakeholders.Many barriers exist to care for children with disabilities in East Africa, including stigma and a lack of human and infrastructural resources. In addition, significant disparities exist with regard to access to medication and specialist care. The International Classification of Functioning framework needs to be translated to clinical practice within East Africa, with due recognition of the importance of family-centred care and emphasis on the life course theory for disability care. Family-centred care, educational initiatives, advocacy on the part of stakeholders and involvement of government policymakers are important avenues to improve outcomes.Further education and data are needed to inform family-centred care and multidisciplinary team implementation across East African care contexts for children with disabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".