ArticleAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2019
Onsite healthcare worker acceptability and performance of the point-of-care Pima CD4 assay in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Article in African journal of laboratory medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare workers' acceptance of and ability to perform point-of-care testing is important for reliable and accurate results. The Alere Pima
objectivesTo evaluate healthcare workers' acceptance and performance of Pima CD4 testing.
methodsThe study was implemented in five high volume sites in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in 2011. Trained healthcare workers performed Pima testing using three whole-blood specimens collected from each patient: venous blood, fingerstick blood directly applied to a Pima cartridge (capillary-direct), and fingerstick blood collected in a microtube (capillary-microtube). Using a semi-structured interview guide, we interviewed 11 healthcare workers about specimen collection methods and Pima CD4 acceptability. Quantitative responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Open-ended responses were summarised by thematic areas. Pima CD4 results were analysed to determine variation between cadres.
resultsHealthcare workers found Pima CD4 user-friendly and recommended its use in low volume, peripheral facilities. Both venous and capillary-direct blood were considered easy to collect, with venous preferred. Advantages noted with venous and capillary-microtube methods were the ability to retest, perform multiple tests, or delay testing. Pima CD4 results were trusted by the healthcare workers and were in agreement with laboratory Pima testing.
conclusionIn this point-of-care testing setting, the Pima CD4 assay was accepted by healthcare workers. Both venous and fingerstick capillary blood specimens can be used with Pima CD4, but fingerstick methods may require more intensive training on technique to minimise variation in results and increase acceptability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.