MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399008454 · doi:10.1101/2024.05.24.24307907

Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Technologies for Support of Tuberculosis Treatment Adherence: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4399008454 on OpenAlexaff
Cedric Kafie, Mona Salaheldin Mohamed, Miranda Zary, Chimweta Ian Chilala, Shruti Bahukudumbi, Geneviève Gore, Nicola Foster, Katherine Fielding, Ramnath Subbaraman, Kevin Schwartzman

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDiverse Scientific Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTuberculosisRisk analysis (engineering)MedicineIntensive care medicineBusinessPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Digital adherence technologies (DATs) may provide a patient-centered approach for supporting tuberculosis (TB) medication adherence and improving treatment outcomes. We synthesized evidence addressing costs and cost-effectiveness of DATs to support TB treatment. Methods A systematic review (PROSPERO-CRD42022313531) identified relevant literature from January 2000-April 2023 in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science along with preprints from medRxiv, Europe PMC and clinicaltrials.gov. Studies with observational, experimental, or quasi-experimental designs (minimum 20 participants) and modelling studies reporting quantitative data on the cost or cost-effectiveness of DATs for TB infection or disease treatment were included. Study characteristics, cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes were extracted. Results Of 3,619 titles identified by our systematic search, 29 studies met inclusion criteria, of which 9 addressed cost-effectiveness. DATs included SMS reminders, phone-based technologies, digital pillboxes, ingestible sensors, and video observed treatment (VOT). VOT was the most extensively studied (16 studies) and was generally cost saving when compared to healthcare provider directly observed therapy (DOT), particularly when costs to patients were included--though findings were largely from high-income countries. Cost-effectiveness findings were highly variable, ranging from no clinical effect in one study (SMS), to greater effectiveness with concurrent cost savings (VOT) in others. Only 8 studies adequately reported at least 80% of the elements required by CHEERS, a standard reporting checklist for health economic evaluations. Conclusion DATs may be cost-saving or cost-effective compared to healthcare provider DOT, particularly in high-income settings. However, more data of higher quality are needed, notably in lower- and middle-income countries which have the greatest TB burden. KEY MESSAGES What is already known on this topic Digital adherence technologies (DATs) can provide a less intrusive, and potentially less resource-intensive way to monitor and support tuberculosis treatment adherence, as compared to traditional direct observation. To date, there is limited information about the cost and cost-effectiveness of these technologies in diverse care settings. What this study adds Our comprehensive review of available studies shows that some DATs like video-observed therapy can be cost-saving, particularly in higher-income countries, and especially when patient costs are considered. How this study might affect research, practice or policy While program savings related to some DATS will likely offset their initial costs in higher-income settings, more evidence is needed from lower-income settings where the TB burden is highest. Costing studies should also more rigorously account for all relevant costs, including those to patients.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.014
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.305
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicDiverse Scientific Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207