1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Contextual factors influencing implementation of tuberculosis digital adherence technologies: a scoping review guided by the RE-AIM framework

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Digital adherence technologies (DATs) may enable person-centred tuberculosis (TB) treatment monitoring; however, implementation challenges may undermine their effectiveness. Using the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance framework, we conducted a scoping review to identify contextual factors informing ‘reach’ (DAT engagement by people with TB) and ‘adoption’ (DAT uptake by healthcare providers or clinics).

          Methods

          We searched eight databases from 1 January 2000 to 25 April 2023 to identify all TB DAT studies. After extracting qualitative and quantitative findings, using thematic synthesis, we analysed common findings to create meta-themes informing DAT reach or adoption. Meta-themes were further organised using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, which posits technology use is influenced by perceived usefulness, ease of use, social influences and facilitating conditions.

          Results

          66 reports met inclusion criteria, with 61 reporting on DAT reach among people with TB and 27 reporting on DAT adoption by healthcare providers. Meta-themes promoting reach included perceptions that DATs improved medication adherence, facilitated communication with providers, made people feel more ‘cared for’ and enhanced convenience compared with alternative care models (perceived usefulness) and lowered stigma (social influences). Meta-themes limiting reach included literacy and language barriers and DAT technical complexity (ease of use); increased stigma (social influences) and suboptimal DAT function and complex cellular accessibility challenges (facilitating conditions). Meta-themes promoting adoption included perceptions that DATs improved care quality or efficiency (perceived usefulness). Meta-themes limiting adoption included negative DAT impacts on workload or employment and suboptimal accuracy of adherence data (perceived usefulness); and suboptimal DAT function, complex cellular accessibility challenges and insufficient provider training (facilitating conditions). Limitations of this review include the limited studies informing adoption meta-themes.

          Conclusion

          This review identifies diverse contextual factors that can inform improvements in DAT design and implementation to achieve higher engagement by people with TB and healthcare providers, which could improve intervention effectiveness.

          Related collections

          Most cited references93

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.

              Progress in public health and community-based interventions has been hampered by the lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework appropriate to such programs. Multilevel interventions that incorporate policy, environmental, and individual components should be evaluated with measurements suited to their settings, goals, and purpose. In this commentary, the authors propose a model (termed the RE-AIM model) for evaluating public health interventions that assesses 5 dimensions: reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. These dimensions occur at multiple levels (e.g., individual, clinic or organization, community) and interact to determine the public health or population-based impact of a program or policy. The authors discuss issues in evaluating each of these dimensions and combining them to determine overall public health impact. Failure to adequately evaluate programs on all 5 dimensions can lead to a waste of resources, discontinuities between stages of research, and failure to improve public health to the limits of our capacity. The authors summarize strengths and limitations of the RE-AIM model and recommend areas for future research and application.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2025
                13 February 2025
                : 10
                : 2
                : e016608
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Public Health and Community Medicine and Center for Global Public Health , Tufts University School of Medicine , Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [2 ]departmentTB Centre , London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London, UK
                [3 ]departmentMcGill International Tuberculosis Centre , Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre , Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [4 ]departmentSchulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering , McGill University , Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [5 ]departmentDivision of Geographic Medicine and Infectious Diseases , Tufts Medical Center , Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                Author notes

                Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

                Additional supplemental material is published online only. To view, please visit the journal online ( https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016608).

                None declared.

                DrRamnathSubbaraman; ramnath.sub@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9039-2367
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1072-2683
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3354-1159
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6524-3754
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2063-943X
                Article
                bmjgh-2024-016608
                10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016608
                11831270
                39947716
                d33948c6-0019-46a1-a12d-6d62a35d26ce
                Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ Group.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 22 June 2024
                : 28 December 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation;
                Award ID: INV-038215
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506

                tuberculosis,global health,systematic review
                tuberculosis, global health, systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article