| Literature DB >> 34797878 |
Levicatus Mugenyi1,2, Rebecca Namugabwe Nsubuga3, Irene Wanyana3, Winters Muttamba1, Nazarius Mbona Tumwesigye3, Saul Hannington Nsubuga4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Feasibility of mobile Apps to monitor diseases has not been well documented particularly in developing countries. We developed and studied the feasibility of using a mobile App to collect daily data on COVID-19 symptoms and people's movements.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34797878 PMCID: PMC8604357 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260269
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Baseline socio-demographic characteristics of study participants by site.
| Variable | Measure | Total | Bwaise | Katanga | Makerere-Kivulu |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants | Number | 101 | 31 | 33 | 37 |
|
| Median (IQR) | 3 (3,5) | 3 (2,5) | 3 (3–5) | 4 (3,4) |
|
| Female | 62 (61%) | 22 (71%) | 22 (67%) | 18 (49%) |
|
| Median (IQR) | 23 (17–36) | 20 (18–33) | 27 (12–36) | 24 (18–40) |
| <12 | 18 (18%) | 3 (10%) | 8 (24%) | 7 (19%) | |
| 12–17 | 9 (9%) | 3 (10%) | 4 (12%) | 2 (5%) | |
| 18–24 | 29 (29%) | 15 (48%) | 4 (12%) | 10 (27%) | |
| 35–34 | 17 (17%) | 3 (10%) | 7 (21%) | 7 (19%) | |
| ≥35 | 28 (28%) | 7 (22%) | 10 (30%) | 11 (30%) | |
|
| 18–24 | 34 (34%) | 17 (55%) | 2 (6%) | 15 (41%) |
| 25–34 | 41 (40%) | 6 (19%) | 13 (39%) | 22 (59%) | |
| > = 35 | 26 (26%) | 8 (26%) | 18 (55%) | - | |
|
| Yes | 87 (86%) | 28 (90%) | 30 (91%) | 29 (78%) |
| No | 10 (10%) | 2 (6%) | 2 (6%) | 6 (16%) | |
| Infant | 4 (4%) | 1 (3%) | 1 (3%) | 2 (5%) | |
|
| Pre-Primary | 34 (39%) | 10 (36%) | 14 (47%) | 10 (34%) |
| Primary | 37 (43%) | 14 (50%) | 11 (37%) | 12 (41%) | |
| Post-Primary | 16 (18%) | 4 (14%) | 5 (17%) | 7 (24%) | |
|
| Married | 28 (28%) | 8 (26%) | 12 (36%) | 8 (22%) |
| Not married | 47 (47%) | 17 (55%) | 11 (33%) | 19 (51%) | |
| Under age/students | 26 (26%) | 6 (19%) | 10 (30%) | 10 (27%) | |
|
| None/House wife | 14 (14%) | 5 (16%) | 5 (15%) | 4 (11%) |
| Informal | 39 (39%) | 12 (39%) | 12 (36%) | 15 (41%) | |
| Formal | 9 (9%) | - | 6 (18%) | 3 (8%) | |
| Under age | 39 (39%) | 14 (45%) | 10 (30%) | 15 (41%) |
Distribution of usage rates for the “Wetaase” App across households followed-up from August-October 2020 across the three study sites.
| Bwaise | Katanga | Makerere-Kivulu | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HH # | Expected entries | Aug-Oct | Aug | Sep | Oct | Expected entries | Aug-Oct | Aug | Sep | Oct | Expected entries | Aug-Oct | Aug | Sep | Oct |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 180 | 90% | 83% | 98% | 88% | 270 | 83% | 79% | 86% | 86% | 180 | 51% | 43% | 72% | 37% |
| 2 | 219 | 97% | 100% | 93% | 100% | 450 | 61% | 35% | 66% | 81% | 270 | 88% | 86% | 97% | 81% |
| 3 | 39 | 51% | 51% | 270 | 66% | 47% | 74% | 77% | 360 | 89% | 84% | 100% | 83% | ||
| 4 | 180 | 84% | 82% | 73% | 97% | 270 | 25% | 37% | 31% | 7% | 200 | 44% | 29% | 48% | 58% |
| 5 | 450 | 77% | 64% | 83% | 83% | 270 | 94% | 92% | 92% | 98% | 180 | 89% | 73% | 97% | 97% |
| 6 | 24 | 50% | 50% | 540 | 96% | 91% | 97% | 99% | 272 | 94% | 84% | 100% | 100% | ||
| 7 | 540 | 87% | 76% | 98% | 89% | 270 | 95% | 88% | 97% | 100% | 360 | 42% | 53% | 48% | 25% |
| 8 | 270 | 60% | 43% | 92% | 44% | 270 | 82% | 69% | 93% | 83% | 180 | 86% | 80% | 92% | 87% |
| 9 | 180 | 48% | 27% | 77% | 40% | 180 | 94% | 92% | 98% | 92% | 360 | 69% | 53% | 81% | 73% |
| 10 | 270 | 65% | 60% | 82% | 53% | 180 | 94% | 83% | 100% | 100% | 810 | 96% | 93% | 96% | 100% |
*These households in Bwaise withdrew from the study in the first month of follow-up.
Fig 1Average usability rates for the “Wetaase” App from day 1 to day 90 for the three study sites.
Generalized linear mixed model estimates for usage of the “Wetaase” App.
| Acceptability | OR | Std. Err. | z | P>|z| | [95% Conf. Interval] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Katanga | 2.68 | 1.68 | 1.57 | 0.12 | 0.78 | 9.15 |
| Makerere-Kivulu | 1.14 | 0.65 | 0.22 | 0.82 | 0.37 | 3.50 |
|
| ||||||
| Female | 0.85 | 0.10 | -1.35 | 0.18 | 0.66 | 1.08 |
|
| ||||||
| 12–17 | 0.85 | 0.20 | -0.71 | 0.48 | 0.54 | 1.34 |
| 18–24 | 1.22 | 0.24 | 1.03 | 0.30 | 0.83 | 1.80 |
| >25+ | 1.32 | 0.22 | 1.68 | 0.09 | 0.96 | 1.84 |
|
| ||||||
| 25–34 | 0.71 | 0.39 | -0.63 | 0.53 | 0.24 | 2.09 |
| > = 35 | 0.42 | 0.29 | -1.25 | 0.21 | 0.11 | 1.63 |
Selected responses from participants during exit interviews.
| Supportive feedback | Feedback suggesting improvement |
|---|---|
| The App is very user friendly and can be used by any ordinary Ugandan who can read. I liked the idea of including English and | Data entry was dependent on only one participant within the household. This was challenging in times when the trained person was busy, sick or unavailable. I recommend training more than one person within a household as back up to ensure consistency in data entry |
| The App has been very useful for monitoring our symptoms and contacts and should be rolled out to the whole country | Sometimes the App would malfunction and would require a study staff to physically come over and troubleshoot. I recommend training people within the community to troubleshoot and repair the App without necessarily waiting for study staff |
| I appreciated the team for the quick follow up and support I got when I had to test for COVID-19 | Some questions were allowing only a limited number of entries yet there would be multiple options, for example the number of movements made within the day |
| I was able to consult the study doctor via a phone call (which was provided in the App) on other illnesses not necessarily COVID-19 related and I was always getting support | I sometimes met so many people that capturing this information was challenging, for example at burials or social events like weddings |
| I sometimes forgot to capture contact details and vehicle number plates |
*Luganda is a language locally used by majority of the people in the study setting. It can easily be edited in the App to suit a different setting.