RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Health worker acceptability of an HIV testing mobile health application within a rural Zambian HIV treatment programme
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.10.12.24315385
DO 10.1101/2024.10.12.24315385
A1 Montaner, Andrés
A1 Mumbalanga, Mulundu
A1 Umuhoza, Marie-Chantal
A1 Kinge, Constance Wose
A1 Okonji, Emeka
A1 Ligenda, Godfrey
A1 Mothibi, Eula
A1 Chirwa, Ben
A1 Pisa, Pedro
A1 Chasela, Charles
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/10/14/2024.10.12.24315385.abstract
AB Background As more people living with HIV are identified and prescribed antiretroviral treatment in Zambia, detecting new HIV infections to complete the last mile of epidemic control is challenging. To address this, innovative targeted testing strategies are essential. Therefore, Right to Care Zambia developed and implemented a novel digital health surveillance application, Lynx, in three Zambian provinces—Northern, Luapula, and Muchinga in 2018. Lynx offers real-time HIV testing data with geo-spatial analysis for targeted testing, and has proven effective in enhancing HIV testing yield. This cross-sectional mixed methods study assessed the acceptability of Lynx among HIV testing healthcare workers in Zambia.Methods A quantitative Likert scale (1–5) survey was administered to 176 healthcare workers to gauge Lynx’s acceptability. Additionally, six qualitative key person interviews and five focus group discussions were conducted to gain an in-depth understanding of acceptability, and identify relevant barriers and facilitators. Quantitative data were analysed by averaging survey responses and running descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were transcribed and analysed in thematic coding. Data triangulation was utilised between the data sources to verify findings.Results Overall, the average survey score of perceived ease of use was 3.926 (agree), perceived usefulness was 4.179 (strongly agree) and perceived compatibility was 3.574 (agree). Survey questions related to network requirements, resource availability, and IT support had the most “strongly disagree” responses. The qualitative data collection revealed that Lynx was perceived as useful, and easy to use. Training for staff and regular updates were identified as facilitators, while conflicting work priorities and inconsistent IT support were identified barriers.Conclusion Lynx was identified as acceptable by health workers due to its perceived usefulness, staff trainings, and regular updates. For a mobile health intervention to be embraced in rural Zambian settings, key facilitators include robust IT support, comprehensive training, user feedback-based updates, and consideration of facility staff priorities.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe author(s) received no specific funding for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The University of Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee (Medical) approved this research with approval number M220720, The ERES Converge IRB has approved this research with reference number 2021-Oct-003I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Not ApplicableAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files ("Qualitative Data" and "Quantitative Data" files).AIDSAcquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeARTAntiretroviral TreatmentGISGlobal Information SystemHIVHuman Immunodeficiency VirusKPIKey Person InterviewNGONon-Government OrganisationPEPFARPresident’s Emergency Plan for AIDS ReliefRTCZRight to Care ZambiaTAMTechnology Acceptance Model