ArticleBMJ open2024
Using digital tools and antigen rapid testing to support household-level SARS-CoV-2 detection by community health workers in Rwanda: an operational pilot study.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the use of antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) alongside a digital tool to deliver household-level COVID-19 testing by community health workers (CHWs), in line with Rwanda's ambition to decentralise COVID-19 testing.
designThis was an operational pilot study to evaluate the impact and operational characteristics of using the digital e-ASCov tool combined with Ag-RDTs to support COVID-19 symptom screening and rapid testing by CHWs across eight districts in Rwanda. A total of 800 CHWs selected from both rural and urban areas were trained in delivering Ag-RDTs for COVID-19 testing and using the e-ASCOV application for data capture on a smartphone. Laboratory technicians repeated a subset of Ag-RDTs to assess the concordance of results obtained by CHWs. The study also assessed CHWs' experience of the intervention using a mixed-methods approach.
settingEight rural, urban and semiurban districts in Rwanda.
participantsA total of 19 544 individuals were enrolled and screened for signs and symptoms of COVID-19.
interventionsCommunity-based screening for COVID-19 by CHWs using the digital tool e-ASCov combined with rapid testing using Ag-RDTs.
main outcome measuresNumber of participants screened and tested; concordance of Ag-RDT results between CHWs and laboratory technicians; feasibility of study procedures by CHWs and CHWs perceptions of the digital tool and Ag-RDT testing.
resultsFrom February to May 2022, CHWs screened 19 544 participants, of whom 4575 (23.4%) had COVID-19-related symptoms or a history of exposure to the infection. Among them, 86 (1.9%) were positive on Ag-RDTs. Concordance of Ag-RDT results between CHWs and laboratory technicians was 100%. Of the 800 trained CHWs, 746 (93.3%) were independently able to conduct household-based COVID-19 screening, perform the Ag-RDTs and send data to the central server. Most CHWs (>80%) found Ag-RDTs and e-ASCOV easy to use.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated the feasibility of deploying a digital tool and Ag-RDTs for household-level SARS-CoV-2 detection in Rwanda. The findings support a broader roll-out of digitally supported rapid testing by CHWs to broaden access to testing for priority diseases.
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.