Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37267319›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Usability of a novel lateral flow assay for the point-of-care detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae: A qualitative time-series assessment among healthcare workers in South Africa.

Lindsey de Vos, Joseph Daniels, Avuyonke Gebengu, Laura Mazzola, Birgitta Gleeson, Jérémie Piton, Mandisa Mdingi, Ranjana Gigi, Cecilia Ferreyra, Jeffrey D Klausner and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  8. Clinical Performance of Cas13a-based Point-of-Care Lateral Flow Assay for DetectingmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Lindsey de VosResearch Unit, Foundation for Professional Development, East London, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-5804-7651
Joseph DanielsEdson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America.
Avuyonke GebenguResearch Unit, Foundation for Professional Development, East London, South Africa.
Laura MazzolaFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland.
Birgitta GleesonFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jérémie PitonFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland.
Mandisa MdingiResearch Unit, Foundation for Professional Development, East London, South Africa.
Ranjana GigiResearch Unit, Foundation for Professional Development, East London, South Africa.
Cecilia FerreyraFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jeffrey D KlausnerKeck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Remco P H PetersResearch Unit, Foundation for Professional Development, East London, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-2124-7275

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate and user-friendly rapid point-of-care diagnostic tests (POCT) are needed to optimize treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, especially in low-resource settings where syndromic management is the standard of care for sexually transmitted infections. This study aimed to assess the acceptability and usability of a novel lateral flow assay and portable reader for the point-of-care detection of N. gonorrhoeae infection (NG-LFA). This mixed-methods study was conducted as part of a diagnostic performance and usability evaluation of a prototype NG-LFA for detection of N. gonorrhoeae in symptomatic men and women at primary healthcare facilities in the Buffalo City Metro, South Africa. The Standardized System Usability Scale (SUS) was administered, and in-depth interviews were conducted among healthcare professionals (HCPs) and fieldworkers (FWs) at pre-implementation, initial use and 3- and 6-month study implementation to assess user expectations, practical experience, and future implementation considerations for the NG-LFA. Data collection and analysis was guided by the Health Technology Adoption Framework, including new health technology attributes, learnability, satisfaction, and suitability. The framework was adapted to include perceived durability. A total of 21 HCPs and FWs were trained on the NG-LFA use. SUS scores showed good to excellent acceptability ranging from 78.8-90.6 mean scores between HCPs and FWs across study time points. All transcripts were coded using Dedoose and qualitative findings were organized by learnability, satisfaction, suitability, and durability domains. Usability themes are described for each time point. Initial insecurity dissipated and specimen processing dexterity with novel POCT technology was perfected over time especially amongst FWs through practical learning and easy-to-use instructions (learnability). Participants experienced both positive and negative test results, yielding perceived accuracy and minimal testing challenges overall (satisfaction). By 3- and 6-month use, both HCPs and FWs found the NG-LFA convenient to use in primary health care facilities often faced with space constraints and outlined perceived benefits for patients (suitability and durability). Findings show that the NG-LFA device is acceptable and usable even amongst paraprofessionals. High SUS scores and qualitative findings demonstrate high learnability, ease-of-use and suitability that provide valuable information for first-step scale-up requirements at primary healthcare level. Minor prototype adjustments would enhance robustness and durability aspects.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsSexually Transmitted DiseasesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansNeisseria gonorrhoeaeSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID37267319
PMCPMC10237465

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.