Establishing communities of practice to improve health policy, systems and reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health in West Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To explore and analyse factors that facilitate and inhibit the initiation and functioning of a national and transnational Community of Practice (CoP) for health policy and systems (HPS) and Reproductive, Maternal, New-born, Child and Adolescent Health (RMNCAH) in West Africa and to identify lessons for CoP interventions in similar multilingual low and middle-income contexts.Design: A case study, with the case defined as processes, enablers and barriers to the initiation and functioning of a national and transnational CoP for HSP and RMNCAH in West Africa and drawing on a review and analysis of secondary data from the program, workshop, country team and project reports, and training sessions.Setting: The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).Participants: Professionals from two Anglophone (Ghana and Sierra Leone) and four Francophone (Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Niger e Senegal) ECOWAS countries.Interventions: Training and mentoring of multi-disciplinary country teams supported by small research grants to undertake formative evaluation and advocacy of priority HPS and RMNCAH issues; support for CoP development within and across country teams.Results: The desire to learn from peers and mentors was a major enabler of the process. Human and financial resource availability, competing demands for time, communication in the context of a Francophone-Anglophone official lan-guage divide and the arrival of COVID-19 were all constraints.Conclusions: This study highlights the processes, achievements, and challenges of establishing country-level and transnational CoPs in West Africa. CoPs require sustained human and financial resource investments, communication and medium-to-long-term implementation support for sustainability and impact.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".