Patient perceptions of video directly observed therapy for tuberculosis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual modes of tuberculosis (TB) treatment monitoring have become increasingly relevant in the last decade with the advancements and increasing accessibility of technology. We conducted a systematic review comparing people with TB's perceptions of standard directly observed therapy (DOT) versus video directly observed therapy (vDOT). Studies were obtained from MEDLINE and EMBASE between January 1, 1974 and February 4, 2021. Of the 22 articles reviewed, a qualitative thematic analysis was performed, drawing on common themes from people with TB's perception of their care. 21 studies showed relative preference for and acceptance of vDOT over DOT. Factors that increased acceptability toward vDOT included cost and time saving, personal sense of empowerment, convenience, and privacy. Studies also showed greater adherence to treatment and subsequent improved health outcomes. vDOT has the potential to be an empowering, person-centered treatment modality for TB therapy. The role of social determinants such as place of residence, access to technology, and patient-provider communication requires further exploration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".