Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26525717›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

'The phone reminder is important, but will others get to know about my illness?' Patient perceptions of an mHealth antiretroviral treatment support intervention in the HIVIND trial in South India.

Rashmi Rodrigues, S Poongulali, Kavitha Balaji, Salla Atkins, Per Ashorn, Ayesha De Costa

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Patterns of usage and preferences of users for tuberculosis-related text messages and voice calls in Uganda.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2018
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rashmi RodriguesKarolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden Department of Community Health, St. John's Medical College, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
S PoongulaliYRG Care Center, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Kavitha BalajiYRG Care Center, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Salla AtkinsKarolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Per AshornDepartment for International Health, University of Tampere School of Medicine, Tampere, Finland.
Ayesha De CostaKarolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe recent explosion of mHealth applications in the area of HIV care has led to the development of mHealth interventions to support antiretroviral treatment adherence. Several of these interventions have been tested for effectiveness, but few studies have explored patient perspectives of such interventions. Exploring patient perspectives enhances the understanding of how an intervention works or why it does not. We therefore studied perceptions regarding an mHealth adherence intervention within the HIVIND trial in South India.

methodsThe study was conducted at three clinics in South India. The intervention comprised an automated interactive voice response (IVR) call and a pictorial short messaging service (SMS), each delivered weekly. Sixteen purposively selected participants from the intervention arm in the HIVIND trial were interviewed. All participants had completed at least 84 weeks since enrollment in the trial. Perceptions on the usefulness and perceived benefits and risks of receiving the intervention were sought. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using the framework approach to qualitative data analysis.

resultsDespite varying perceptions of the intervention, most participants found it useful. The intervention was perceived as a sign of 'care' from the clinic. The IVR call was preferred to the SMS reminder. Two-way communication was preferred to automated calls. Participants also perceived a risk of unintentional disclosure of their HIV status and stigma thereof via the intervention and took initiatives to mitigate this risk. Targeting reminders at those with poor adherence and those in need of social support was suggested.

conclusionsmHealth adherence interventions go beyond their intended role to provide a sense of care and support to the recipient. Although automated interventions are impersonal, they could be a solution for scale up. Interventions that engage both the recipient and the healthcare provider have greater potential for success. Personalising mHealth interventions could mitigate the risk of stigma and promote their uptake. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN79261738.

Indexed as

Cell PhonePatient SatisfactionReminder SystemsAnti-HIV AgentsHIV InfectionsHumansIndiaMedication AdherencePerceptionPrivacyQualitative ResearchSocial StigmaSocial SupportTelemedicineAnti-HIV AgentsPUBLIC HEALTHQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID26525717
PMCPMC4636629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.