ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Feasibility and acceptability of task sharing collection of HIV viral load dried blood spot samples with community lay cadres: A cross-sectional diagnostic validation study in Zimbabwe.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Viral load (VL) testing is a critical tool for clinical management of HIV, yet healthcare worker (HCW) shortages remain a key barrier to VL sample collection. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of VL dried blood spot (DBS) sample collection by community lay cadres (CLCs) compared to collection by trained HCWs. We implemented a cross-sectional diagnostic validation study across 10 purposefully selected public health facilities in Zimbabwe over six weeks in March-April 2024. Two DBS samples were collected from 374 participants: a reference sample collected by a HCW and a validation sample collected by a CLC. A subset of 173 CLC collections were observed using a checklist, and surveys were conducted with participating clients and CLCs. Diagnostic comparability was assessed using the proportion of matched pairs with agreement on viral load suppression status and Gwet's AC1 statistic, while survey and observation data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. No samples were rejected by the laboratory, but two samples (one collected by a HCW and one by a CLC) were classified as invalid. Of the 372 paired tests analyzed, 96.0% (95%CI 93.2-97.7%) had concordant results, and the Gwet's AC1 was 0.9564, indicating almost perfect agreement. All critical checklist items were done properly in 90.2% (95%CI 85.7-94.7%) of observed CLC collections. All CLCs reported confidence in performing DBS sample collection (89% very confident; 11% somewhat confident), and 94% of clients indicated willingness to have samples collected by a CLC in the future. These findings suggest that task-sharing VL DBS sample collection with CLCs is a feasible strategy, supported by strong diagnostic comparability, high CLC competency, and client acceptability. Policymakers should consider formalizing task shifting of VL sample collection within facilities. Further evidence on the feasibility of community-based DBS collection is needed.
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.