Fifty years of hemodialysis in Ghana—current status, utilization and cost of dialysis services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Kidney failure is common in Ghana. Haemodialysis (HD) is the most common treatment modality for survival. Although, HD has been available in Ghana for 50 years, the majority of patients who develop kidney failure cannot access it. We describe the state of HD, dialysis prevalence, its utilization and cost of HD after fifty years of dialysis initiation in Ghana. Methods A situational assessment of HDs centres in Ghana was conducted by surveying nephrologists, doctors, nurses and other health care professionals in HD centres from August to October 2022. We assessed the density of HD centres, number of HD machines, prevalence of nephrologists, number of patients receiving HD treatment and the cost of dialysis in private and government facilities in Ghana. Results There are 51 HD centres located in 9 of the 16 regions of Ghana. Of these, only 40 centres are functioning, as 11 had shut down or are yet to operate. Of the functioning centres most (n = 26, 65%) are in the Greater Accra region serving 17.7% of the population and 7(17.5%) in the Ashanti region serving 17.5% of the population in Ghana. The rest of the seven regions have one centre each. The private sector has twice as many HD centers (n = 27, 67.5%) as the public sector (n = 13,32.5%). There are 299 HD machines yielding 9.7 HD machines per million population (pmp) with a median of 6 (IQR 4–10) machines per centre. Ghana has 0.44 nephrologists pmp. Currently, 1195 patients receive HD, giving a prevalence of 38.8 patients pmp with 609(50.9%) in the private sector. The mean cost of HD session is US $53.9 ± 8.8 in Ghana. Conclusion There are gross inequities in the regional distribution of HD centres in Ghana, with a low HD prevalence and nephrology workforce despite a high burden of CKD. The cost of haemodialysis remains prohibitive and mainly paid out-of-pocket limiting its utilization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".