Simplifying ART cohort monitoring: Can pharmacy stocks provide accurate estimates of patients retained on antiretroviral therapy in Malawi?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".