ArticlePloS one2026
Challenges in diagnosing cryptococcosis among HIV-infected patients in southern Mozambique and opportunities for intervention in contexts of limited resources: A pre-implementation study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWorldwide, cryptococcosis has increased due to HIV/AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where the mortality is high. Laboratory diagnosis for cryptococcosis among HIV-infected patients remains a challenge in most SSA countries. This study aimed to explore facilitators, barriers to re-implementing the India ink test, and logistical factors that could support the successful rollout of this alternative diagnostic method in southern Mozambique.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using mixed methods approaches in six hospitals across southern Mozambique over three months. Clinicians and laboratory technicians were asked to complete a questionnaire aimed to capture sociodemographic data, as well as current practices and clinical approaches with respect to cryptococcal diagnosis and clinical management. Subsequently, individual in-depth interviews were conducted to understand current challenges in the diagnosis of cryptococcosis and to assess facilitators, barriers, and potential opportunities for interventions. Quantitative data were captured through REDCap and subsequently analyzed using SPSS statistical program, while qualitative data were analyzed manually using a combination of content and thematic analysis approaches.
resultsA total of 98 healthcare providers (67 clinicians and 31 laboratory technicians) participated in the study. The mean age of the participants was 35 years. More than half were female (58.2%) and had at least five years of relevant work experience (53.1%). Challenges in diagnosing and managing cryptococcal disease were mainly related to 1) frequent shortages in the stocks of cryptococcal rapid antigen test, 2) contextual challenges in collecting cerebrospinal fluid samples, and 3) frequent shortages in the stocks of antifungal medications. In contrast, all study facilities had availability of microscopes, recognized the need for cryptococcal screening services, and had clinicians and laboratory technicians willing to collaborate for eventual roll-out of the test as routine practice.
conclusionFrequent stock-outs of rapid diagnostic tests and challenges associated with performing lumbar punctures are barriers to routine screening for cryptococcosis. In contrast, we have identified the universal availability of microscopes and health workers' recognition of the problem, as well as their willingness to collaborate, as potential facilitators to leverage for the successful reintroduction of India ink microscopy of urine samples as a low-cost laboratory test alternative.
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.