MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3216326601 · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-00972-6

The effect of weekly interactive text-messaging on early infant HIV testing in Kenya: a randomised controlled trial (WelTel PMTCT)

2021· article· en· W3216326601 on OpenAlexafffund
Björn Nordberg, Winfred Mwangi, Mia L. van der Kop, Edwin Were, Eunice Kaguiri, Anna Kågesten, Erin E. Gabriel, Richard Lester, Jonathan Mwangi, Anna Mia Ekström, Susanne Rautiainen

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institutes of HealthEuropean and Developing Countries Clinical Trials PartnershipCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchStiftelsen Läkare mot AIDS ForskningsfondKarolinska Institutet
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPoisson regressionPediatricsBreastfeedingIntervention (counseling)Postnatal CareHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Psychological interventionmHealthTransmission (telecommunications)Family medicinePregnancyPopulationNursingInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mother-to-child transmission of HIV remains a significant concern in Africa despite earlier progress. Early infant diagnosis (EID) of HIV is crucial to reduce mortality among infected infants through early treatment initiation. However, a large proportion of HIV-exposed infants are still not tested in Kenya. Our objective was to investigate whether weekly interactive text-messages improved prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV care outcomes including EID HIV testing. This multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial included six antenatal care clinics across western Kenya. Pregnant women living with HIV, aged 18 years or older, with mobile phone access, were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to weekly text messages that continued until 24 months postpartum, asking "How are you?" ("Mambo?") to which they were asked to respond within 48 h, or a control group. Healthcare workers contacted participants reporting problems and non-responders by phone. Participants in both groups received routine PMTCT care. The prespecified secondary outcome reported in this paper is EID HIV testing by eight weeks of age (blinded outcome assessment). Final 24-months trial results will be published separately. We estimated risk ratios using Poisson regression with robust standard errors. Between June 2015-July 2016, we screened 735 pregnant women, of whom 600 were enrolled: 299 were allocated to the intervention and 301 to the control group. By eight weeks of age, the uptake of EID HIV testing out of recorded live births was 85.5% in the intervention and 84.7% in the control group (71.2% vs. 71.8% of participants randomised, including miscarriages, stillbirths, etc.). The intention-to-treat risk ratio was 0.99; 95% CI: 0.90-1.10; p = 0.89. The proportion of infants diagnosed with HIV was 0.8% in the intervention and 1.2% in the control group. No adverse events were reported. We found no evidence to support that the WelTel intervention improved EID HIV testing. A higher uptake of EID testing than expected in both groups may be a result of lower barriers to EID testing and improved PMTCT care in western Kenya, including the broader standard use of mobile phone communication between healthcare workers and patients. (ISRCTN No. 98818734. Funded by the European-Developing Countries Clinical Trial Partnership and others).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.358 · 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
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→