Disparidad en Salud desde la Experiencia de Trabajadores en la Gestión Epidemiológica del Dengue: Health Disparities from the Experience of Workers in the Epidemiological Management of Dengue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines health disparities from the perspective of workers in the epidemiological management of dengue. It is based on the identification of structural and systemic barriers that perpetuate inequities. The objective was to understand their experiences to develop more inclusive and sustainable strategies. Methodologically, an integrative theoretical review was conducted under PRISMA principles, employing a mixed approach (qualitative-quantitative) with biphasic evaluation through complementary frameworks: Cochrane Handbook for experimental studies and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The results identified three fundamental dimensions: conceptual-operational gap (disconnection between theoretical knowledge and practical application), structural-functional gap (limitations in infrastructure and resources), and organizational-systematic gap (deficiencies in inter-institutional coordination). It is concluded that these disparities reflect inequalities that affect both the dengue response and the well-being of workers and communities, evidencing the need for inclusive policies that combine intersectoral efforts, community participation, and health system strengthening.
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 | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".