| Literature DB >> 29335236 |
Sheana Bull1, Deborah Sk Thomas2, Elias C Nyanza3, Sospatro E Ngallaba3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV requires innovative solutions. Although routine monitoring is effective in some areas, standardized and easy-to-scale solutions to identify and monitor pregnant women, test them for HIV, and treat them and their children is still lacking. Mobile health (mHealth) offers opportunities for surveillance and reporting in rural areas of low- and middle-income countries.Entities:
Keywords: HIV; decision aids; healthcare workers; mHealth
Year: 2018 PMID: 29335236 PMCID: PMC5789159 DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.8513
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Figure 1Selected screenshots of the Tanzania Health Information Technology (T-HIT) system.
Antenatal visit information at Tanzania Health Information Technology (T-HIT) health facility sites.
| Health facility sites | Misungwi | Misasi | Mwawile | Mbarika | Mondo | Nguge | Gambajiga | Total T-HIT | |
| Total visits | 558 | 69 | 187 | 226 | 205 | 175 | 164 | 1594 | |
| Mean per week (SDa) | 40.6 (15.6) | 4.9 (5.5) | 13.4 (8.8) | 16.1 (11.0) | 14.6 (8.8) | 12.5 (8.1) | 11.7 (6.2) | 16.27 (3.38) | |
| Total HIV tests | 193 | 6 | 97 | 121 | 39 | 139 | 100 | 695 | |
| Mean per week (SD) | 14.1 (11.0) | 0.46 (1.13) | 6.9 (5.2) | 9.0 (6.7) | 2.5 (3.6) | 10.0 (7.8) | 7.7 (4.1) | 7.2 (3.2) | |
| Total unable to complete an HIV test | 23 | —b | 24 | 9 | 34 | 10 | 0 | 103 | |
| Mean per week (SD) | 1.6 (3.5) | — | 1.7 (3.6) | 0.6 (1.2) | 2.4 (2.7) | 0.7 (2.2) | 0 (0) | 1.1 (1.4) | |
| Total testing HIV+ | 26 | — | 10 | — | 0 | 6 | — | 55 | |
| Mean per week (SD) | 1.9 (1.3) | — | 0.7 (1.4) | — | 0.0 (0.0) | 0.4 (0.5) | — | 0.6 (0.5) | |
| Total visits | 307 | 258 | 79 | 104 | 34 | 65 | 32 | 879 | |
| Mean per week (SD) | 29.63 (9.49) | 22.63 (7.71) | 8.07 (3.73) | 9.81 (4.9) | 3.00 (1.92) | 6.64 (2.65) | 3.92 (2.43) | 12.50 (11) | |
| Total HIV tests | 202 | 56 | 64 | 68 | 6 | 58 | 32 | 486 | |
| Mean per week (SD) | 22.50 (10.58) | 4.81 (6.75) | 6.47 (4.03) | 6.81 (5.74) | 0.64 (1.34) | 6.14 (2.93) | 3.85 (2.44) | 7.58 (8.75) | |
| Total testing HIV+ | 8 | — | 7 | — | 0 | — | — | 22 | |
| Mean per week (SD) | 0.69 (0.95) | — | 0.73 (0.88) | — | 0.00 (0) | — | — | 0.35 (0.69) | |
aSD: standard deviation.
bFive or less visits reported; totals were included in the model.
Antenatal visit information at comparison health facility sites, intervention phase.
| Health facility sites | Bukumbi | Busongo | Igokelo | Koromije | Lubiri | Nyamijundu | Nyang | Total paper | |
| Total visits | 178 | 137 | 94) | 179 | 70 | 131 | 77 | 866 | |
| Mean per week (SDa) | 10.81 (3.67) | 10.60 (3.25) | 5.94 (3.51) | 16.1 (11.0) | 5.57 (3.41) | 12.5 (8.1) | 6.29 (3.65) | 8.91 (5.06) | |
| Total HIV tests | 95 | 34 | 14 | 71 | 27 | 47 | 55 | 343 | |
| Mean per week (SD) | 7.69 (3.65) | 1.93 (3.47) | 0.19 (0.4) | 4.06 (5.18) | 2.00 (2.88) | 10.0 (7.8) | 8.08 (5.33) | 4.20 (4.65) | |
| Total testing HIV+ | 21 | —b | — | 6 | 0 | — | — | 25 | |
| Mean per week (SD) | 0.56 (0.89) | — | — | 0.31 (0.79) | 0.00 (0) | — | — | 0.24 (0.6) | |
aSD: standard deviation.
bFive or less visits reported; totals were included in the model.
Figure 2Maps demonstrating testing access and HIV incidence at Tanzania Health Information Technology (T-HIT) study sites.
Model outcomes for rate and odds ratios of patient visits, tested for HIV, and tested positive for HIV; Tanzania Health Information Technology (T-HIT) electronic records compared with paper records in T-HIT sites and comparison sites.
| Variable and category | Rate ratio (95% CI) | |||
| Week | 0.99 (0.97-1.00) | .14 | ||
| .20a | ||||
| T-HIT electronic versus non-T-HIT paper (week 18) | 1.52 (0.87-2.66) | .14 | ||
| T-HIT electronic versus T-HIT paper (week 18) | 1.14 (0.67-1.95) | .63 | ||
| T-HIT paper versus non-T-HIT paper (week 18) | 1.11 (0.61-2.01) | .74 | ||
| Phase | ||||
| Post intervention versus pre intervention | 1.04 (0.71-1.53) | .83 | ||
| Week×phase interaction | ||||
| Post intervention versus pre intervention | 1.00 (0.98-1.03) | .75 | ||
| Week | 0.95 (0.86-1.06) | .35 | ||
| .77a | ||||
| T-HIT electronic versus non-T-HIT paper (week 18) | 0.89 (0.27-2.90) | .85 | ||
| T-HIT electronic versus T-HIT paper (week 18) | 0.65 (0.24-1.79) | .41 | ||
| T-HIT paper versus non-T-HIT paper (week 18) | 1.28 (0.26-6.16) | .76 | ||
| Phase | ||||
| Post intervention versus pre intervention | 0.06 (0.01-0.29) | .001 | ||
| Week×phase interaction | ||||
| Post intervention versus pre intervention | 1.10 (0.97-1.23) | .13 | ||
| Post intervention versus pre intervention | 0.95 (0.91-1.00) | .04 | ||
| Preintervention effect of week | 0.98 (0.94-1.04) | .55 | ||
| Postintervention effect of week | 0.94 (0.89-0.98) | .004 | ||
| .69a | ||||
| T-HIT electronic versus non-T-HIT paper (week 18) | 0.67 (0.24-1.82) | .43 | ||
| T-HIT electronic versus T-HIT paper (week 18) | 0.78 (0.23-2.63) | .68 | ||
| T-HIT paper versus non-T-HIT paper (week 18) | 0.41 (0.19-0.89) | .02 | ||
| Phase | ||||
| Post intervention versus pre intervention | 6.43 (2.26-18.35) | .001 | ||
aType 3 P values.
Figure 3Odds of testing positive for HIV.