MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133184984 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18837755

Training Programmes for Tuberculosis Prevention among Urban Slums Residents in Accra, Ghana: A Longitudinal Review

2006· article· en· W7133184984 on OpenAlexaff
Kofi Agbenyeni, Precious Awoyeleye, Gifty Adzimba, Freddy Anyantakpor

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvercrowdingPsychological interventionPublic healthTuberculosisSlumCommunity health workersProgram evaluationHealth education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban slums in Accra, Ghana, are at increased risk of tuberculosis (TB) due to overcrowding and poor living conditions. Community Health Workers (CHWs) play a crucial role in TB prevention by educating residents about infection control measures. A comprehensive search was performed using databases such as PubMed and Web of Science. Studies were included if they reported the efficacy of training programmes delivered to CHWs between and , focusing on changes in knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to TB prevention. Analysis revealed that CHW training significantly improved participants' understanding of TB transmission and preventive measures. Specifically, 78% of trained CHWs reported increased confidence in educating residents about cough etiquette post-training compared to baseline levels. CHW training programmes demonstrated effectiveness in enhancing knowledge and attitudes toward TB prevention among urban slum residents in Accra, with long-term adherence observed over a period of six months. Future research should investigate the scalability of these interventions across different settings and evaluate their cost-effectiveness. Policy-makers could consider implementing similar community-based CHW training programmes as part of broader public health strategies to address TB prevention in urban slums. Model estimation used $\hat{\theta}=argmin_{\theta}\sum_i\ell(y_i,f_\theta(x_i))+\lambda\lVert\theta\rVert_2^2$, with performance evaluated using out-of-sample error.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→