MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196338004 · doi:10.2196/27131

Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Benefits of and Barriers to Using Video-Observed Treatment for Monitoring Patients With Tuberculosis in Uganda: Exploratory Qualitative Study

2021· article· en· W3196338004 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juliet N. Sekandi, Vicent Kasiita, Nicole Amara Onuoha, Sarah Zalwango, Damalie Nakkonde, David Kaawa–Mafigiri, Julius Turinawe, Robert Kakaire, Paula Davis-Olwell, Lynn Atuyambe, Esther Buregyeya

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Georgia Research FoundationVirginia Department of TransportationUniversity of Georgia
KeywordsMedicineFocus groupDirectly Observed TherapyQualitative researchTuberculosismHealthExploratory researchFamily medicineHealth careInformed consentNursingCross-sectional studyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Psychological interventionAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to treatment remains a barrier to tuberculosis (TB) control. Directly observed therapy (DOT) is the standard for monitoring adherence to TB treatment worldwide, but its implementation is challenging, especially in resource-limited settings. DOT is labor-intensive and inconvenient to both patients and health care workers. Video DOT (VDOT) is a novel patient-centered alternative that uses mobile technology to observe patients taking medication remotely. However, the perceptions and acceptability of potential end users have not been evaluated in Africa. OBJECTIVE: This study explores stakeholders' acceptability of, as well as perceptions of potential benefits of and barriers to, using VDOT to inform a pilot study for monitoring patients with TB in urban Uganda. METHODS: An exploratory, qualitative, cross-sectional study with an exit survey was conducted in Kampala, Uganda, from April to May 2018. We conducted 5 focus group discussions, each comprising 6 participants. Groups included patients with TB (n=2 groups; male and female), health care providers (n=1), caregivers (n=1), and community DOT volunteer workers (n=1). The questions that captured perceived benefits and barriers were guided by domains adopted from the Technology Acceptance Model. These included perceived usefulness, ease of use, and intent to use technology. Eligible participants were aged ≥18 years and provided written informed consent. For patients with TB, we included only those who had completed at least 2 months of treatment to minimize the likelihood of infection. A purposive sample of patients, caregivers, health care providers, and community DOT workers was recruited at 4 TB clinics in Kampala. Trained interviewers conducted unstructured interviews that were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive content analysis to generate emerging themes. RESULTS: The average age of participants was 34.5 (SD 10.7) years. VDOT was acceptable to most participants on a scale of 1 to 10. Of the participants, 70% (21/30) perceived it as highly acceptable, with scores ≥8, whereas 30% (9/30) scored between 5 and 7. Emergent themes on perceived benefits of VDOT were facilitation of easy adherence monitoring, timely follow-up on missed doses, patient-provider communication, and saving time and money because of minimal travel to meet in person. Perceived barriers included limited technology usability skills, inadequate cellular connectivity, internet access, availability of electricity, cost of the smartphone, and use of the internet. Some female patients raised concerns about the disruption of their domestic work routines to record videos. The impact of VDOT on privacy and confidentiality emerged as both a perceived benefit and barrier. CONCLUSIONS: VDOT was acceptable and perceived as beneficial by most study participants, despite potential technical and cost barriers. Mixed perceptions emerged about the impact of VDOT on privacy and confidentiality. Future efforts should focus on training users, ensuring adequate technical infrastructure, assuring privacy, and performing comparative cost analyses in the local context.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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