MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3141650554 · doi:10.2196/28094

Mobile Tuberculosis Treatment Support Tools to Increase Treatment Success in Patients with Tuberculosis in Argentina: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

2021· article· en· W3141650554 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Iribarren, Hannah Milligan, Kyle Goodwin, Omar Alfonso Aguilar Vidrio, Cristina Chirico, Hugo Telles, Daniela Morelli, Barry R. Lutz, Jennifer Sprecher, Fernando Rubinstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute of Nursing Research
KeywordsMedicineTuberculosisIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionUsabilityRandomized controlled trialClinical trialFamily medicineNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) is an urgent global health threat and the world's deadliest infectious disease despite being largely curable. A critical challenge is to ensure that patients adhere to the full course of treatment to prevent the continued spread of the disease and development of drug-resistant disease. Mobile health interventions hold promise to provide the required adherence support to improve TB treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the TB treatment support tools (TB-TSTs) intervention on treatment outcomes (success and default) and to assess patient and provider perceptions of the facilitators and barriers to TB-TSTs implementation. METHODS: The TB-TSTs study is an open-label, randomized controlled trial with 2 parallel groups in which 400 adult patients newly diagnosed with TB will be randomly assigned to receive usual care or usual care plus TB-TSTs. Participants will be recruited on a rolling basis from 4 clinical sites in Argentina. The intervention consists of a smartphone progressive web app, a treatment supporter (eg, TB nurse, physician, or social worker), and a direct adherence test strip engineered for home use. Intervention group participants will report treatment progress and interact with a treatment supporter using the app and metabolite urine test strip. The primary outcome will be treatment success. Secondary outcomes will include treatment default rates, self-reported adherence, technology use, and usability. We will assess patients' and providers' perceptions of barriers to implementation and synthesize lessons learned. We hypothesize that the TB-TSTs intervention will be more effective because it allows patients and TB supporters to monitor and address issues in real time and provide tailored support. We will share the results with stakeholders and policy makers. RESULTS: Enrollment began in November 2020, with a delayed start due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and complete enrollment is expected by approximately July 2022. Data collection and follow-up are expected to be completed 6 months after the last patient is enrolled. Results from the analyses based on the primary end points are expected to be submitted for publication within a year of data collection completion. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this randomized controlled trial will be the first study to evaluate a patient-centered remote treatment support strategy using a mobile tool and a home-based direct drug metabolite test. The results will provide robust scientific evidence on the effectiveness, implementation, and adoption of mobile health tools. The findings have broader implications not only for TB adherence but also more generally for chronic disease management and will improve our understanding of how to support patients facing challenging treatment regimens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04221789; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04221789. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/28094.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0690.009

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207