ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Facilitators and barriers to uptake of digital adherence technologies in improving TB care in Ethiopia: A qualitative study.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of Digital Interventions on the Treatment Burden of Patients With Chronic Conditions: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Adverse drug reactions in tuberculosis treatment: Incidence, duration and resolution pathways from a mixed-methods patient-centric study in India.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of digital adherence technologies (DATs) in improving tuberculosis (TB) treatment adherence is an emerging area of policy discussion. Given that the directly observed therapy (DOT) has several shortcomings, alternative approaches such as DATs are vital to enhancing current practices by rendering person-centered models to support the completion of TB treatments. However, there is a lack of evidence that informs policy and program on facilitators and barriers to the uptake of DATs in the context of country-specific real-world situations. The purpose of this study was to explore the facilitators and barriers to the uptake of DATs by drawing from the accounts of people with TB (PWTB), healthcare workers (HCWs) and other key policy stakeholders in Ethiopia. A qualitative study was conducted to capture the perspectives of participants to help understand the contextual factors that are important in the uptake of DATs. The overall response from participants highlighted that uptake of DATs was high despite some critical implementation barriers. DATs were useful in reducing the burden of treatment management on both PWTB and HCWs, improving adherence and flexibility, and enhancing the patient-provider relationship. The relative simplicity of using DATs, positive feedback from important others, and current policy opportunities were seen as additional facilitators for the uptake of DATs in the Ethiopian context. Key barriers including network issues (mobile phone signals), lack of inclusivity and fear of stigma (as perceived by HCWs) were identified as key barriers that could limit the implementation of DATs. The findings of this qualitative study have provided a rich set of perspectives relevant to policymakers, providers and implementers in identifying the facilitators and barriers to the uptake of DATs in Ethiopia. The overall finding suggests that DATs are highly acceptable among the diverse categories of participants in the presence of critical barriers that limit uptake of DATs including poor infrastructure. However, key policy stakeholders believe that there are several opportunities and initiatives for feasible implementation, adaptation and scale-up of DATs in the current Ethiopian context.
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.