Simplifying ART cohort monitoring: Can pharmacy stocks provide accurate estimates of patients retained on antiretroviral therapy in Malawi?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Routine monitoring of patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) is crucial for measuring program success and accurate drug forecasting. However, compiling data from patient registers to measure retention in ART is labour-intensive. To address this challenge, we conducted a pilot study in Malawi to assess whether patient ART retention could be determined using pharmacy records as compared to estimates of retention based on standardized paper- or electronic based cohort reports.Twelve ART facilities were included in the study: six used paper-based registers and six used electronic data systems. One ART facility implemented an electronic data system in quarter three and was included as a paper-based system facility in quarter two only. Routine patient retention cohort reports, paper or electronic, were collected from facilities for both quarter two [April-June] and quarter three [July-September], 2010. Pharmacy stock data were also collected from the 12 ART facilities over the same period. Numbers of ART continuation bottles recorded on pharmacy stock cards at the beginning and end of each quarter were documented. These pharmacy data were used to calculate the total bottles dispensed to patients in each quarter with intent to estimate the number of patients retained on ART. Information for time required to determine ART retention was gathered through interviews with clinicians tasked with compiling the data.Among ART clinics with paper-based systems, three of six facilities in quarter two and four of five facilities in quarter three had similar numbers of patients retained on ART comparing cohort reports to pharmacy stock records. In ART clinics with electronic systems, five of six facilities in quarter two and five of seven facilities in quarter three had similar numbers of patients retained on ART when comparing retention numbers from electronically generated cohort reports to pharmacy stock records. Among paper-based facilities, an average of 13 4 hours was needed to calculate patient retention for cohort reporting using patient registers as compared to 2.25 hours using pharmacy stock cards.The numbers of patients retained on ART as estimated using pharmacy stock records were largely similar to estimates based on either paper registers or electronic data system. Furthermore, less time and staff effort was needed to estimate ART patient retention using pharmacy stock records versus paper-based registers. Reinforcing ARV stock management may improve the precision of estimates.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,044 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».