Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30764808›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Qualitative assessment of South African healthcare worker perspectives on an instrument-free rapid CD4 test.

Fiona Scorgie, Yasmin Mohamed, David Anderson, Suzanne M Crowe, Stanley Luchters, Matthew F Chersich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. 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.

Fiona ScorgieWits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute (Wits RHI), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. fscorgie@wrhi.ac.za.
Yasmin MohamedBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
David AndersonBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Suzanne M CroweBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Stanley LuchtersBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Matthew F ChersichWits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute (Wits RHI), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4320-9168

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation N/AGovernment of Norway N/AGrand Challenges Canada N/AUK Government N/AUSAID N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate measurement of CD4 cell counts remains an important tenet of clinical care for people living with HIV. We assessed an instrument-free point-of-care CD4 test (VISITECT® CD4) based on a lateral flow principle, which gives visual results after 40 min. The test involves five steps and categorises CD4 counts as above or below 350 cells/μL. As one component of a performance evaluation of the test, this qualitative study explored the views of healthcare workers in a large women and children's hospital on the acceptability and feasibility of the test.

methodsPerspectives on the VISITECT® CD4 test were elicited through in-depth interviews with eight healthcare workers involved in the performance evaluation at an antenatal care facility in Johannesburg, South Africa. Audio recordings were transcribed in full and analysed thematically.

resultsHealthcare providers recognised the on-going relevance of CD4 testing. All eight perceived the VISITECT® CD4 test to be predominantly user-friendly, although some felt that the need for precision and optimal concentration in performing test procedures made it more challenging to use. The greatest strength of the test was perceived to be its quick turn-around of results. There were mixed views on the semi-quantitative nature of the test results and how best to integrate this test into existing health services. Participants believed that patients in this setting would likely accept the test, given their general familiarity with other point-of-care tests.

conclusionsOverall, the VISITECT® CD4 test was acceptable to healthcare workers and those interviewed were supportive of scale-up and implementation in other antenatal care settings. Both health workers and patients will need to be oriented to the semi-quantitative nature of the test and how to interpret the results of tests.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCD4-Positive T-LymphocytesPoint-of-Care TestingAdultCD4 Lymphocyte CountFemaleHealth PersonnelHIV InfectionsHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, VerticalPerceptionPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousPrenatal DiagnosisQualitative ResearchSouth AfricaAcceptabilityCD4HIVPoint of careQualitative researchSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID30764808
PMCPMC6376755

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.