| Literature DB >> 31906350 |
Victoria Morgan1, Lisseth Casso-Hartmann2,3, David Bahamon-Pinzon4, Kelli McCourt4, Robert G Hjort5, Sahar Bahramzadeh6, Irene Velez-Torres2,3, Eric McLamore1, Carmen Gomes5, Evangelyn C Alocilja7,8, Nirajan Bhusal7,9,10, Sunaina Shrestha10, Nisha Pote10, Ruben Kenny Briceno11,12,13,7, Shoumen Palit Austin Datta1,14,15,16, Diana C Vanegas3,4.
Abstract
In this manuscript, we discuss relevant socioeconomic factors for developing and implementing sensor analytic point solutions (SNAPS) as point-of-care tools to serve impoverished communities. The distinct economic, environmental, cultural, and ethical paradigms that affect economically disadvantaged users add complexity to the process of technology development and deployment beyond the science and engineering issues. We begin by contextualizing the environmental burden of disease in select low-income regions around the world, including environmental hazards at work, home, and the broader community environment, where SNAPS may be helpful in the prevention and mitigation of human exposure to harmful biological vectors and chemical agents. We offer examples of SNAPS designed for economically disadvantaged users, specifically for supporting decision-making in cases of tuberculosis (TB) infection and mercury exposure. We follow-up by discussing the economic challenges that are involved in the phased implementation of diagnostic tools in low-income markets and describe a micropayment-based systems-as-a-service approach (pay-a-penny-per-use-PAPPU), which may be catalytic for the adoption of low-end, low-margin, low-research, and the development SNAPS. Finally, we provide some insights into the social and ethical considerations for the assimilation of SNAPS to improve health outcomes in marginalized communities.Entities:
Keywords: environmental health; pay-a-penny-per-use (PAPPU); poverty; public health; sensor analytic point solutions (SNAPS)
Year: 2020 PMID: 31906350 PMCID: PMC7169468 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10010022
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Overview of process in development of sensor analytic point solutions (SNAPS) for the examples shown below. (A) The process begins with establishing context, and each cycle concludes with technology refinement based on user feedback. The blue, orange, and green arrows indicate technology evolution by using established principles of circular feedback systems. (B) A conical representation of the blue, orange, and green cycles shown in Panel (A) indicate convergence toward a systems-level solution through feedback/refinement pathways. The total number of cycles is context-specific and proceeds from cycle 1 to cycle n.
Results found by using Xpert MTB/RIF as the gold standard for true tuberculosis (TB) cases and non-TB cases [55].
| SSM Test | True TB Cases | Non-TB Cases | NCBA Test | True TB Cases | Non-TB Cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive test | 32 | 0 | Positive test | 80 | 0 |
| Negative test | 48 | 420 | Negative test | 0 | 420 |
Comparison of diagnostic performance [55].
| Technique | Xpert MTB/RIF as the Gold Standard, % (95% CI) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Accuracy | |
| SSM Test | 40 (29–52) | 100 (99–100) | 100 | 90 (88–91) | 90 (87–93) |
| NCBA Test | 100 (95–100) | 100 (99–100) | 100 | 100 | 100 (99–100) |
Detection limit and dynamic range of detection of the two techniques with respect to the Xpert MTB/RIF categories [55].
| Xpert MTB/RIF Categories ** | Very Low | Low | Medium | High | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xpert MTB/RIF | 10 | 22 | 29 | 19 | 80 |
| NCBA | 10 | 22 | 29 | 19 | 80 |
| SSM | 0 | 3 | 14 | 15 | 32 |
| % Detection (NCBA/Xpert) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| % Detection (SSM/Xpert) | 0% | 14% | 48% | 79% |
** The Xpert MTB/RIF assay provides semiquantitative readouts based on the cycle threshold (C): very low = C > 28, low = C, medium = C high = C < 16.
Figure 2Typical nanoparticle-based colorimetric biosensing assay (NCBA) results for TB+ and TB− sputum samples, as viewed through the eyepiece of the bright field microscope. (A) The TB-positive sample (clumped red GMNP-AFB complex surrounded by brown GMNPs). (B) TB negative sample (dispersed brown GMNP). (C) Schematic of smartphone app for image processing and display of test results [55].
Figure 3Demonstration of a SNAPS tool for assessing risk due to the inadvertent consumption of mercury in drinking water for gold mining communities in Colombia. The first step was to (A) characterize the local socioeconomic dynamics and (B) identify related routes of mercury exposure (in this case from smelting of amalgam). (C) Together with community members, we collected samples from local water sources. (D) These samples were tested with nanomaterial-enabled sensors. (D) Concentration data derived from sensors were transformed into customized information about the toxicity risk for specific user groups who were using a mobile app.
Figure 4SNAPS converges with pay-a-penny-per-use (PAPPU) to establish a framework for sensor-as-a-service. The paradigm is rooted in economic, ethical, cultural, and environmental core values that synergistically act as a catalyst for the democratization of healthcare in underserved communities. Where noted, photos credited to Demirbas et al. [137] and Vanegas et al. [95].