ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Access to and utilization of COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) among people living with HIV (PLWH): A mixed methods study from Cambodia.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. 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.
- Geospatial Point-of-Care Testing Strategies for COVID-19 Resilience in Resource-Poor Settings: Rural Cambodia Field Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests have been approved in Cambodia, but no evidence exists about the access to and utilization of these tests. This limits public health interventions to increase testing, especially among vulnerable populations such as people living with HIV (PLWH). We conducted a mixed method study among PLWH in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, between July and August 2022 to understand their current Ag-RDT access and utilization levels, as well as key barriers and drivers. We undertook a cross-sectional survey and focus group discussions among 280 and 10 PLWH, respectively, from five HIV treatment centres using a probability-proportional-to-size and simple random sampling approach. Access was defined as having received a COVID-19 Ag-RDT within the six months and utilization as having administered a COVID-19 Ag-RDT, either to oneself or to others, within the 12 months prior to the study. We calculated means, standard deviations and proportions for continuous and categorical variables, using a linear regression model with random effects to account for clustering. Additionally, we fitted a logistic model with random effects to assess factors associated with Ag-RDT access. For the qualitative data, we used thematic analyses to identify barriers/enablers of Ag-RDT access and utilization. About 35% (n = 101) of PLWH reported having had access to an Ag-RDT test in the past six months. About 11% (n = 32) of the study participants administered the Ag-RDT to themselves, 4% (n = 10) to others and 9% (n = 24) have done both, in the past 12 months. Age and education appeared to be associated with Ag-RDT access in the logistic models. Price and advice from pharmacists were commonly reported to be the main selection criteria for the brand of Ag-RDT chosen. Ag-RDTs are an important diagnostic tool for COVID-19 among PLWH in Cambodia, but familiarity of use and price could hinder better uptake, access and utilization.
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.