Tuberculosis Treatment Compliance Under Smartphone-Based Video-Observed Therapy Versus Community-Based Directly Observed Therapy: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are no recent studies comparing the compliance rates of both patients and observers in tuberculosis treatment between the video-observed therapy (VOT) and directly observed therapy (DOT) programs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the average number of days that patients with pulmonary tuberculosis and their observers were compliant under VOT and DOT. In addition, this study aims to compare the sputum conversion rate of patients under VOT with that of patients under DOT. METHODS: Patient and observer compliance with tuberculosis treatment between the VOT and DOT programs were compared based on the average number of VOT and DOT compliance days and sputum conversion rates in a 60-day cluster randomized controlled trial with patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (VOT: n=63 and DOT: n=65) with positive sputum acid-fast bacilli smears and 38 observers equally randomized into the VOT and DOT groups (19 observers per group and n=1-5 patients per observer). The VOT group submitted videos to observers via smartphones; the DOT group followed standard procedures. An intention-to-treat analysis assessed the compliance of both the patients and the observers. RESULTS: The VOT group had higher average compliance than the DOT group (patients: mean difference 15.2 days, 95% CI 4.8-25.6; P=.005 and observers: mean difference 21.2 days, 95% CI 13.5-28.9; P<.001). The sputum conversion rates in the VOT and DOT groups were 73% and 61.5%, respectively (P=.17). CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone-based VOT significantly outperformed community-based DOT in ensuring compliance with tuberculosis treatment among observers. However, the study was underpowered to confirm improved compliance among patients with pulmonary tuberculosis and to detect differences in sputum conversion rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) TCTR20210624002; https://tinyurl.com/3bc2ycrh. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/38796.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".