ArticleResearch square2025
A Cost Analysis of Implementing Asynchronous Video Directly Observed Therapy for Monitoring Treatment in Patients with Tuberculosis Disease in Uganda.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Video directly observed treatment (VDOT) supports person-centered care and addresses shortcomings of in-person directly observed treatment (DOTS). However, there is limited literature on implementation costs to inform TB program policy in low-resource settings, such as Uganda. Objective: This study aimed to assess the costs associated with implementing the VDOT intervention in Uganda, based on a completed randomized trial. Methods: We carried out a micro-costing analysis. This employed both bottom-up and top-down approaches to estimate health system costs (in 2024 US dollars) of the VDOT intervention. The analysis covered 71 persons with TB from six health facilities in Kampala, Uganda. Results: The estimated overall costs for implementing VDOT in Uganda were $16,037.80 among 71 patients with TB. The estimated per-person costs for VDOT were $220.93. The largest proportion of the overall cost was associated with smartphones and accessories (29.5%), followed by VDOT platform infrastructure costs (21.7%), program support costs (19.5%), and internet data costs used by patients to send the videos (10.2%). The per-person costs of using VDOT are lower than the potential cost of daily transport that would be associated with facility-based DOT. Conclusion: The implementation of VDOT in Kampala was associated with a relatively low cost compared to the projected cost when using the traditional DOT method. This highlights the cost saving benefit to the patients when using remote treatment monitoring with the video technology. A full economic evaluation from the programmatic and societal perspective is recommended to inform the adoption of the VDOT strategy in resource-limited settings.
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.