| Literature DB >> 35787285 |
Christopher Mbotwa1,2, Method Kazaura3, Kåre Moen4, Melkizedeck Leshabari5, Emmy Metta5, Germana Leyna3,6, Elia J Mmbaga3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is evidence that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is effective in preventing HIV transmission, and PrEP is recommended by the World Health organization (WHO) for use by individuals at high risk of HIV infection. However, low adherence has been reported to hamper its effectiveness. Some evidence indicates that mHealth interventions may be a promising way of promoting PrEP adherence. Nevertheless, evaluations of mHealth interventions in Africa, the region most affected by HIV, are scarce. This study aimed at identifying the extent of and predictors for use of a smartphone based mHealth application among female sex workers in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.Entities:
Keywords: Female sex workers; HIV; Jichunge; PrEP; mHealth
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35787285 PMCID: PMC9254514 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08245-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.908
Distribution of socio-demographics and structural factors by use of the Jichunge app
| Variable | All | Optimal users | Non-Optimal users | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 470 | 218 (46.4) | 252 (53.6) | ||
| < 0.001 | ||||
| 18-24 | 218 (46.4) | 84 (38.5) | 134 (61.5) | |
| 25-34 | 204 (43.4) | 103 (50.5) | 101 (49.5) | |
| 35+ | 48 (10.2) | 31 (64.6) | 17 (35.4) | |
| 0.091 | ||||
| Never married | 356 (75.7) | 156 (43.8) | 200 (56.2) | |
| Married or previously married | 114 (24.3) | 62 (54.4) | 52 (45.6) | |
| 0.062 | ||||
| No formal education | 46 (9.8) | 14 (30.4) | 32 (69.6) | |
| Primary complete | 173 (36.8) | 77 (44.5) | 96 (55.5) | |
| Secondary+ | 251 (53.4) | 127 (50.6) | 124 (49.4) | |
| 0.446 | ||||
| Yes | 306 (65.1) | 151 (49.3) | 155 (50.7) | |
| No | 164 (34.9) | 67 (40.9) | 97 (59.1) | |
| 0.018 | ||||
| Yes | 235 (50.0) | 127 (54.0) | 108 (46.0) | |
| No | 235 (50.0) | 91 (38.7) | 144 (61.3) | |
| 0.521 | ||||
| Low | 33 (7.0) | 12 (36.4) | 21 (63.6) | |
| Moderate | 395 (84.1) | 189 (47.8) | 206 (52.2) | |
| High | 42 (8.9) | 17 (40.5) | 25 (69.5) | |
| 0.340 | ||||
| Yes | 32 (6.8) | 22 (68.7) | 10 (31.3) | |
| No | 437 (93.0) | 196 (44.8) | 241 (55.2) | |
| 0.095 | ||||
| Yes | 139 (29.6) | 73 (52.5) | 66 (47.5) | |
| No | 329 (70.0) | 144 (43.8) | 185 (56.2) | |
| 0.788 | ||||
| High | 310 (65.9) | 145 (46.8) | 165 (63.2) | |
| Medium | 37 (7.9) | 15 (40.5) | 22 (59.5) | |
| Low/no | 73 (15.5) | 32 (43.8) | 41 (56.2) | |
| Don’t know | 46 (9.9) | 24 (52.2) | 22 (47.8) | |
| 0.122 | ||||
| Very good | 76 (16.2) | 38 (50.0) | 38 (50.0) | |
| Good | 372 (79.1) | 168 (45.2) | 204 (54.8) | |
| Fair/poor | 22 (4.7) | 12 (54.5) | 10 (45.5) | |
| 0.985 | ||||
| Low | 359 (76.4) | 168 (46.8) | 191 (53.2) | |
| High | 111 (23.6) | 50 (45.0) | 61 (55.0) | |
| 0.799 | ||||
| Low risk | 148 (31.5) | 69 (46.6) | 79 (53.4) | |
| Harmful or hazardous | 137 (29.1) | 67 (48.9) | 70 (51.1) | |
| Alcohol dependence | 185 (39.4) | 82 (44.3) | 103 (55.7) | |
| < 0.001 | ||||
| Low | 254 (54.0) | 96 (37.8) | 158 (62.2) | |
| High | 216 (46.0) | 122 (56.5) | 94 (43.5) | |
| 0.153 | ||||
| Inadequate | 290 (61.7) | 133 (45.9) | 157 (54.1) | |
| adequate | 175 (37.2) | 82 (46.9) | 93 (53.1) |
1p-value is based on the chi-square test
Distribution of sex work characteristics by optimal use of the Jichunge app
| Variable | All | Optimal users | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.033 | |||
| Below 15 | 65 (13.8) | 22 (33.8) | |
| 15-17 | 193 (41.1) | 105 (54.4) | |
| 18+ | 212 (45.1) | 91 (42.9) | |
| 0.389 | |||
| Below 18 | 88 (18.7) | 34 (38.6) | |
| 18-24 | 290 (61.7) | 136 (46.9) | |
| 25+ | 92 (19.6) | 48 (52.2) | |
| 0.055 | |||
| ≤ 150,000 | 124 (26.4) | 53 (42.7) | |
| 150,001-299,999 | 93 (19.8) | 43 (46.2) | |
| 300,000-444,999 | 149 (31.7) | 85 (57.0) | |
| ≥ 450,000 | 89 (18.9) | 29 (32.6) | |
| 0.266 | |||
| ≤ 15,000 | 125 (26.6) | 59 (47.2) | |
| 15,001-25,000 | 118 (25.1) | 50 (42.4) | |
| 25,001-39,999 | 85 (18.1) | 38 (44.7) | |
| ≥ 40,000 | 142 (30.2) | 71 (50.0) | |
| 0.740 | |||
| Yes | 302 (64.3) | 144 (47.7) | |
| No | 168 (35.7) | 74 (44.0) | |
| 0.380 | |||
| < 10 | 158 (33.6) | 67 (42.4) | |
| 10-29 | 165 (35.1) | 74 (44.8) | |
| ≥ 30 | 147 (31.3) | 77 (52.4) | |
| 0.433 | |||
| Yes | 232 (49.4) | 115 (49.6) | |
| No | 238 (50.6) | 103 (43.3) | |
| 0.340 | |||
| Yes | 220 (46.8) | 108 (49.1) | |
| No | 250 (53.2) | 110 (44.0) |
1p-value is based on the chi-square test; 2TZS stands for Tanzanian Shillings (1 USD =2318 TZS)
Smartphone experience by optimal use of Jichunge app
| Variable | All | Optimal users | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.786 | |||
| Very familiar | 190 (40.4) | 96 (50.5) | |
| Familiar | 275 (58.5) | 119 (43.3) | |
| Unfamiliar | 5 (1.1) | 3 (60.0) | |
| 0.905 | |||
| At least once per day | 383 (81.5) | 181 (47.3) | |
| Less than once per day | 87 (53.0) | 37 (42.5) | |
| 0.580 | |||
| < 5000 | 221 (47.5) | 108 (48.9) | |
| 5000-9999 | 166 (35.7) | 76 (45.8) | |
| 10,000+ | 78 (16.8) | 34 (43.6) | |
| 0.079 | |||
| Yes | 5 (1.1) | 3 (60.0) | |
| No | 465 (98.9) | 215 (46.2) | |
| 0.355 | |||
| Yes | 24 (51.4) | 12 (50.0) | |
| No | 443 (94.9) | 203 (45.8) | |
| 442 (94.0) | 212 (48.0) | 0.052 | |
| 450 (95.7) | 206 (45.8) | 0.413 | |
| 352 (74.9) | 181 (51.4) | 0.001 | |
| 20 (4.3) | 11 (55.0) | 0.078 | |
| Several (3 or more apps) | 335 (71.3) | 171 (51.0) | 0.003 |
1p-value is based on the chi-square test; 2TZS stands for Tanzanian Shillings (1 USD =2318 TZS)
Fig. 1Distribution of participants use of different Jichunge app services during the first 30 days of app ownership
Modified Poisson regression modelling of independent predictors of optimal use of the Jichunge app
| Variable | Crude estimates | Adjusted estimates | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PR (95% CI) | aPR (95% CI) | |||
| 18-24 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| 25-34 | 1.4 (1.14-1.69) | 0.001 | 1.3 (1.10-1.65) | 0.004 |
| 35+ | 1.8 (1.38-2.24) | < 0.001 | 1.6 (1.19-2.07) | 0.001 |
| Never married | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Married or previously married | 1.2 (0.46-0.56) | 0.076 | 1.1 (0.91-1.35) | 0.311 |
| No formal education | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Primary | 1.6 (0.92-2.80) | 0.098 | 1.6 (0.98-2.69) | 0.061 |
| Secondary+ | 1.7 (0.99-2.98) | 0.053 | 1.8 (1.08-2.94) | 0.023 |
| ≤ 150,000 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| 150,001-299,999 | 1.1 (0.82-1.36) | 0.678 | 1.0 (0.81-1.33) | 0.763 |
| 300,000-444,999 | 1.2 (0.98-1.53) | 0.079 | 1.2 (0.95-1.47) | 0.132 |
| ≥ 450,000 | 0.87 (0.64-0.60) | 0.347 | 0.80 (0.67-1.20) | 0.472 |
| Yes | 1.2 (1.03-1.47) | 0.020 | 1.1 (0.95-1.35) | 0.173 |
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Below 15 | Ref. | Ref | Ref. | Ref |
| 15-17 | 1.4 (1.01-1.88) | 0.038 | 1.3 (0.98-1.77) | 0.065 |
| 18+ | 1.2 (0.84-1.60) | 0.372 | 0.99 (0.72-1.36) | 0.957 |
| Yes | 1.2 (0.98-1.38) | 0.091 | 1.0 (0.88-1.25) | 0.591 |
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Inadequate | 1.1 (0.95-1.37) | 0.161 | 1.2 (1.02-1.48) | 0.030 |
| Adequate | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Very good | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Good | 0.86 (0.70-1.07) | 0.177 | 0.96 (0.78-1.19) | 0.705 |
| Fair/poor | 1.1 (0.84-1.57) | 0.386 | 1.0 (0.72-1.42) | 0.944 |
| High | 1.5 (1.24-1.77) | < 0.001 | 1.3 (1.08-1.55) | 0.005 |
| Low | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Yes | 0.87 (0.73-1.04) | 0.136 | 1.2 (0.92-1.68) | 0.160 |
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Yes | 1.4 (1.10-1.77) | 0.006 | 1.4 (1.08-1.71) | 0.009 |
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
PR Prevalence ratio, aPR Adjusted prevalence ratio