Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36812548›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2022

Transitioning a digital health innovation from research to routine practice: Two-way texting for male circumcision follow-up in Zimbabwe.

Phiona Marongwe, Beatrice Wasunna, Jacqueline Gavera, Vernon Murenje, Farai Gwenzi, Joseph Hove, Christine Mauhy, Sinokuthemba Xaba, Raymond Mugwanya, Batsirai Makunike-Chikwinya and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

21 authors.

Phiona MarongweZimbabwe Technical Training and Education Centre for Health (Zim-TTECH), Harare Zimbabwe.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0214-1267
Beatrice WasunnaMedic, Nairobi, Kenya.
Jacqueline GaveraZimbabwe Technical Training and Education Centre for Health (Zim-TTECH), Harare Zimbabwe.
Vernon MurenjeZimbabwe Technical Training and Education Centre for Health (Zim-TTECH), Harare Zimbabwe.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-9837
Farai GwenziZimbabwe Technical Training and Education Centre for Health (Zim-TTECH), Harare Zimbabwe.
Joseph HoveZimbabwe Association of Church related Hospitals (ZACH), Harare Zimbabwe.
Christine MauhyZimbabwe Community Health Intervention Research (ZiCHIRe), Harare Zimbabwe.
Sinokuthemba XabaMinistry of Health and Child Care (MoHCC), Harare Zimbabwe.
Raymond MugwanyaMedic, Nairobi, Kenya.
Batsirai Makunike-ChikwinyaZimbabwe Technical Training and Education Centre for Health (Zim-TTECH), Harare Zimbabwe.
Tinashe MunyaradziZimbabwe Community Health Intervention Research (ZiCHIRe), Harare Zimbabwe.
Michael KorirMedic, Nairobi, Kenya.
Femi OniMedic, Nairobi, Kenya.
Antony KhaembaMedic, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4345-055X
Mourice BarasaMedic, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8599-3168
Marrianne HolecInternational Training and Education Center for Health, Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Vuyelwa Sidile-ChitimbireZimbabwe Association of Church related Hospitals (ZACH), Harare Zimbabwe.
Mufuta TshimangaZimbabwe Community Health Intervention Research (ZiCHIRe), Harare Zimbabwe.
Isaac HolemanMedic, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9072-4162
Scott BarnhartDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Caryl FeldackerInternational Training and Education Center for Health, Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8152-6754

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adult medical male circumcision (MC) is safe: global notifiable adverse event (AE) rates average below 2.0%. With Zimbabwe's shortage of health care workers (HCWs) compounded by COVID-19 constraints, two-way text-based (2wT) MC follow-up may be advantageous over routinely scheduled in-person reviews. A 2019 randomized control trial (RCT) found 2wT to be safe and efficient for MC follow-up. As few digital health interventions successfully transition from RCT to scale, we detail the 2wT scale-up approach from RCT to routine MC practice comparing MC safety and efficiency outcomes. After the RCT, 2wT transitioned from a site-based (centralized) system to hub-and-spoke model for scale-up where one nurse triaged all 2wT patients, referring patients in need to their local clinic. No post-operative visits were required with 2wT. Routine patients were expected to attend at least one post-operative review. We compare 1) AEs and in-person visits between 2wT men from RCT and routine MC service delivery; and 2) 2wT-based and routine follow-up among adults during the 2wT scale-up period, January to October 2021. During scale-up period, 5084 of 17417 adult MC patients (29%) opted into 2wT. Of the 5084, 0.08% (95% CI: 0.03, 2.0) had an AE and 71.0% (95% CI: 69.7, 72.2) responded to ≥1 daily SMS, a significant decrease from the 1.9% AE rate (95% CI: 0.7, 3.6; p<0.001) and 92.5% response rate (95% CI: 89.0, 94.6; p<0.001) from 2wT RCT men. During scale-up, AE rates did not differ between routine (0.03%; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.08) and 2wT (p = 0.248) groups. Of 5084 2wT men, 630 (12.4%) received telehealth reassurance, wound care reminders, and hygiene advice via 2wT; 64 (19.7%) were referred for care of which 50% had visits. Similar to RCT outcomes, routine 2wT was safe and provided clear efficiency advantages over in-person follow-up. 2wT reduced unnecessary patient-provider contact for COVID-19 infection prevention. Rural network coverage, provider hesitancy, and the slow pace of MC guideline changes slowed 2wT expansion. However, immediate 2wT benefits for MC programs and potential benefits of 2wT-based telehealth for other health contexts outweigh limitations.

Identifiers

PMID36812548
PMCPMC9931231

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.