| Literature DB >> 27802283 |
Shama Mohammed1, Rachel Glennerster2, Aamir J Khan1.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The rapid uptake of mobile phones in low and middle-income countries over the past decade has provided public health programs unprecedented access to patients. While programs have used text messages to improve medication adherence, there have been no high-powered trials evaluating their impact on tuberculosis treatment outcomes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27802283 PMCID: PMC5089745 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162944
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Trial Profile.
Demographic characteristics of participants enrolled in the trial (2011–2014, Karachi, Pakistan).*
| SMS Group (n = 1110) | Control Group (n = 1097) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n(%) | ||
| Female | 561 (51%) | 518 (47%) | |
| Age (mean/SD) | 33 (16) | 33 (16) | |
| Urdu is mother tongue | 529 (48%) | 549 (50%) | |
| Clinic type | |||
| Indus Hospital | 404 (36%) | 385 (35%) | |
| GP clinic/private | 190 (17%) | 193 (18%) | |
| Public tuberculosis clinic | 516 (46%) | 519 (47%) | |
| 6 Month treatment regimen | 764 (69%) | 777 (71%) | |
| Assigned a treatment supporter | 102 (10%) | 106 (10%) | |
| Own mobile phone | 540 (49%) | 565 (52%) | |
| Schooling | |||
| No school | 517 (49%) | 475 (47%) | |
| Primary (class 1–5) | 108 (10%) | 115 (11%) | |
| Secondary (class 6–10) | 325 (31%) | 307 (30%) | |
| Tertiary (above class 10) | 77 (7%) | 101 (10%) | |
| Religious school | 15 (1%) | 16 (2%) | |
*There are 138 missing values for assigned a treatment supporter, 145 missing values for age; 146 missing values for no school and religious school; and 151 missing values for primary, secondary, and tertiary.
†SD = standard deviation
‡GP = private general practitioner
Fig 2Response rates over time in treatment.
Clinically-recorded treatment success between Zindagi SMS and control groups (2011–2014, Karachi, Pakistan).
| Clinically recorded treatment success | Clinically recorded treatment success adjusted for self-reported outcomes | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Control Group | |||||||||
| n | N | % | p-value | n | % | n | % | p-value | ||
| Treatment success | 917 | 83% | 903 | 83% | 0.782 | 923 | 84% | 911 | 83% | 0.871 |
| Treatment complete | 332 | 30% | 325 | 30% | 0.863 | 339 | 31% | 333 | 30% | 0.903 |
| Cured | 585 | 53% | 578 | 53% | 0.960 | 584 | 53% | 578 | 53% | 0.994 |
| Default | 108 | 10% | 103 | 9% | 0.775 | 74 | 7% | 80 | 7% | 0.572 |
| Died | 19 | 2% | 19 | 2% | 0.975 | 38 | 3% | 29 | 3% | 0.282 |
| Treatment Failure | 27 | 2% | 29 | 3% | 0.758 | 26 | 2% | 29 | 3% | 0.655 |
| Transfer Out | 33 | 3% | 39 | 4% | 0.446 | 43 | 4% | 44 | 4% | 0.875 |
| Total | 1104 | 1093 | 1104 | 1093 | ||||||
Fig 3Criteria for determining self-reported outcomes.
Sub-group analysis using treatment success as the outcome (2011–2014, Karachi, Pakistan).
| Control Group | naive | FWER | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sub-group | N | n | coefficient | p-value | p-value | |||
| Male | 438 | 80% | 468 | 81% | -0.012 | 0.618 | 0.999 | |
| Female | 479 | 86% | 435 | 84% | 0.019 | 0.394 | 0.974 | |
| Indus Hospital | 317 | 79% | 301 | 78% | 0.005 | 0.872 | 1 | |
| GP Clinic/Private Lab | 180 | 95% | 167 | 87% | 0.082 | 0.006 | 0.069 | |
| Public TB Clinic | 420 | 82% | 435 | 84% | -0.023 | 0.331 | 0.954 | |
| Assigned a treatment supporter | 89 | 87% | 84 | 79% | 0.080 | 0.124 | 0.698 | |
| Not assigned a treatment supporter | 793 | 84% | 768 | 84% | -0.004 | 0.815 | 1 | |
| Reminded to take medication (with one month after enrolment) | 355 | 82% | 324 | 83% | -0.011 | 0.689 | 1 | |
| Not reminded to take medication (within one month after enrolment) | 436 | 87% | 446 | 84% | 0.022 | 0.318 | 0.953 | |
| Own mobile phone | 450 | 84% | 474 | 84% | -0.005 | 0.806 | 1 | |
| Don’t own mobile phone | 467 | 82% | 429 | 81% | 0.016 | 0.502 | 0.994 | |
| No schooling | 416 | 81% | 381 | 80% | 0.004 | 0.875 | 1 | |
| Any schooling | 461 | 88% | 469 | 87% | 0.006 | 0.758 | 1 | |
| At least one literate person in the household | 753 | 85% | 744 | 84% | 0.008 | 0.629 | 0.999 | |
| No literate people in the household | 129 | 80% | 108 | 81% | -0.016 | 0.736 | 1 | |
| Can send SMS (within month of enrolment) | 263 | 88% | 232 | 87% | 0.014 | 0.624 | 0.999 | |
| Cannot send SMS (within first month of enrolment) | 528 | 83% | 538 | 82% | 0.001 | 0.958 | 1 | |
*Bonferroni correction p-value (with 17 subgroups): 0.003
†p<0.05
‡Family-wise error rate20
Secondary outcomes between the Zindagi SMS and control groups (2011–2014, Karachi Pakistan).
| Took medication in the last 24 hours | Perceptions on likelihood of being cured | How healthy they felt | Ease of completing tasks | How much support was received | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zindagi | 0.002 | -0.008 | -0.012 | -0.017 | 0.020 |
| Naïve p-value | 0.772 | 0.473 | 0.423 | 0.036 | 0.521 |
| FWER | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.162 | 0.89 |
| N (surveys) | 11,301 | 9,560 | 11,324 | 11,235 | 1658 |
| N (patients) | 2091 | 2068 | 2091 | 2088 | 1658 |
*Bonferroni correction p-value (with 5 hypotheses): 0.001
† Controlling for the length of the regimen, days in the study, and days in the study-squared.
‡p<0.05
§Family-wise error rate [20]