ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2023
Acceptability and usability of a paediatric HIV screening tool in high-volume outpatient settings in Malawi, perspectives from caregivers and healthcare workers.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUsing an HIV pretest screening tool to identify children most at risk for HIV infection may be a more efficient and cost-effective approach to identify children living with HIV in resource-limited settings. These tools seek to reduce overtesting of children by increasing the positive predictive value while ensuring a high negative predictive value for those screened for HIV.
methodsThis qualitative study in Malawi evaluated acceptability and usability of a modified version of the Zimbabwe HIV screening tool to identify children aged 2-14 years most-at-risk. The tool included additional questions about previous hospitalisations due to malaria and prior documented diagnoses. Sixteen interviews were conducted with expert clients (ECs), trained peer-supporters, which administered the screening tool and 12 interviews with biological and non-biological caregivers of screened children. All interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and translated. Transcripts were analysed manually using a short-answer analysis, compiling responses for each question by study participant group. Summary documents were generated, identifying common and outlier perspectives.
resultsThe HIV paediatric screening tool was generally accepted by caregivers and ECs, with both groups seeing the benefit of the tool and promoting its use. The ECs who were primarily responsible for implementing the tool initially struggled with acceptance of the tool but started to accept it after additional training and mentorship was provided. Overall, caregivers accepted having their children tested for HIV, although non-biological caregivers expressed hesitancy in giving consent for HIV testing. ECs reported challenges with the ability for non-biological caregivers to answer some questions.
conclusionThis study found general acceptance of paediatric screening tools in children in Malawi and identified some minor challenges that raise important considerations for tool implementation. These include the need for a thorough orientation of the tools for the healthcare workers and caregivers, appropriate space at the facility, and adequate staffing and commodities.
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.