ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Micro-costing from healthcare professional's perspective and acceptability of cutaneous leishmaniasis diagnostic tools in Morocco: A mixed-methods study.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of qualitative and mixed methods research in diagnostic technology evaluation and implementation: insights from a systematic review.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Review
- Leishmaniasis in Morocco: Epidemiology, Transmission Dynamics, and the Potential of Artificial Intelligence for Disease Management.Journal of parasitology research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Morocco, cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) represents a concern with three causative parasite species. Despite this, rapid diagnostic test (RDT) for CL is not part of the national control strategy. This study evaluates the acceptability and micro-costing of the CL Detect Rapid Test by Inbios International. The study was conducted from June 2019 to January 2020 and included 46 healthcare professionals from 40 primary healthcare centers and district labs. Data was collected by self-administered questionnaires and interviews and analysed using NVivo, Jamovi, and Python to generate a predictive model and sensitivity analysis by calculating the average Cost-Benefit Ratio for compared CL diagnostic scenarios. The exchange rate is 1 USD = 9.6 MAD (Moroccan Dirham) in November 2019. The CL-RDT received notable acceptance for its user-friendliness and time efficiency compared to traditional microscopy. Micro-costing data revealed that the average unit cost for microscopy is 15 MAD [7-31], whereas 75 MAD [52-131] for CL-RDT. Altogether, the diagnostic cost for microscopy is 115 MAD±4, marginally higher than the 102 MAD±2 for CL-RDT (p = 0,05). Sensitivity analysis identified the most cost-benefit scenarios based on a Cost-Benefit Ratio (CBR). The optimal approach involves using CL-RDT once at a primary healthcare centre (PHC) (CBR = 1.4), especially if the unitary cost is below 79 MAD. The second-best option is using CL-RDT once at a laboratory (CBR = 1.0), which is advantageous if priced under 54 MAD. However, using CL-RDT twice for the same lesion had a less favourable CBR of 0.6 and was only beneficial if priced below 09 MAD. The reference scenario was a single CL-RDT at the PHC followed by microscopy at a laboratory. In conclusion, the forthcoming CL-RDT, expected to feature enhanced sensitivity, is advocated for deployment in resource-limited endemic areas.
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.