MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037869292 · doi:10.2196/16634

Explaining Differences in the Acceptability of 99DOTS, a Cell Phone–Based Strategy for Monitoring Adherence to Tuberculosis Medications: Qualitative Study of Patients and Health Care Providers

2020· article· en· W3037869292 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Beena Thomas, J Vignesh Kumar, Chidiebere Onongaya, Spurthi N Bhatt, Amith Galivanche, Murugesan Periyasamy, M Chiranjeevi, Amit Khandewale, Geetha Ramachandran, Daksha Shah, Jessica E. Haberer, Kenneth H. Mayer, Ramnath Subbaraman

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Mental HealthDoris Duke Charitable Foundation
KeywordsMedicineQualitative researchFamily medicineHealth careUnified theory of acceptance and use of technologyTuberculosisExpectancy theoryPublic healthNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: 99DOTS is a cell phone-based strategy for monitoring tuberculosis (TB) medication adherence that has been rolled out to more than 150,000 patients in India's public health sector. A considerable proportion of patients stop using 99DOTS during therapy. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand reasons for variability in the acceptance and use of 99DOTS by TB patients and health care providers (HCPs). METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with individuals taking TB therapy in the government program in Chennai and Vellore (HIV-coinfected patients) and Mumbai (HIV-uninfected patients) across intensive and continuation treatment phases. We conducted interviews with HCPs who provide TB care, all of whom were involved in implementing 99DOTS. Interviews were transcribed, coded using a deductive approach, and analyzed with Dedoose 8.0.35 software (SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC). The findings of the study were interpreted using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, which highlights 4 constructs associated with technology acceptance: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influences, and facilitating conditions. RESULTS: We conducted 62 interviews with patients with TB, of whom 30 (48%) were HIV coinfected, and 31 interviews with HCPs. Acceptance of 99DOTS by patients was variable. Greater patient acceptance was related to perceptions of improved patient-HCP relationships from increased phone communication, TB pill-taking habit formation due to SMS text messaging reminders, and reduced need to visit health facilities (performance expectancy); improved family involvement in TB care (social influences); and from 99DOTS leading HCPs to engage positively in patients' care through increased outreach (facilitating conditions). Lower patient acceptance was related to perceptions of reduced face-to-face contact with HCPs (performance expectancy); problems with cell phone access, literacy, cellular signal, or technology fatigue (effort expectancy); high TB- and HIV-related stigma within the family (social influences); and poor counseling in 99DOTS by HCPs or perceptions that HCPs were not acting upon adherence data (facilitating conditions). Acceptance of 99DOTS by HCPs was generally high and related to perceptions that the 99DOTS adherence dashboard and patient-related SMS text messaging alerts improve quality of care, the efficiency of care, and the patient-HCP relationship (performance expectancy); that the dashboard is easy to use (effort expectancy); and that 99DOTS leads to better coordination among HCPs (social influences). However, HCPs described suboptimal facilitating conditions, including inadequate training of HCPs in 99DOTS, unequal changes in workload, and shortages of 99DOTS medication envelopes. CONCLUSIONS: In India's government TB program, 99DOTS had high acceptance by HCPs but variable acceptance by patients. Although some factors contributing to suboptimal patient acceptance are modifiable, other factors such as TB- and HIV-related stigma and poor cell phone accessibility, cellular signal, and literacy are more difficult to address. Screening for these barriers may facilitate targeting of 99DOTS to patients more likely to use this technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations69
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207