Zero-covid advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of views on Twitter/X.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many advocacy groups and individuals criticized governments on social media for doing either too much or too little to mitigate the pandemic. In this article, we review advocacy for COVID-19 elimination or "zero-covid" on the social media platform X (Twitter). We present a thematic analysis of tweets by 20 influential co-signatories of the World Health Network letter on ten themes, covering six topics of science and mitigation (zero-covid, epidemiological data on variants, long-term post-acute sequelae (Long COVID), vaccines, schools and children, views on monkeypox/Mpox) and four advocacy methods (personal advice and promoting remedies, use of anecdotes, criticism of other scientists, and of authorities). The advocacy, although timely and informative, often appealed to emotions and values using anecdotes and strong criticism of authorities and other scientists. Many tweets received hundreds or thousands of likes. Risks were emphasized about children's vulnerability, Long COVID, variant severity, and Mpox, and via comparisons with human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV). Far-reaching policies and promotion of remedies were advocated without systematic evidence review, or sometimes, core field expertise. We identified potential conflicts of interest connected to private companies. Our study documents a need for public health debates to be less polarizing and judgmental, and more factual. In order to protect public trust in science during a crisis, we suggest the development of mechanisms to ensure ethical guidelines for engagement in "science-based" advocacy, and consideration of cost-benefit analysis of recommendations for public health decision-making.

Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity.

Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members toward one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but nonfinancial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analyzing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated toward COVID-19 elimination (Zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases toward advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided.

Correction: Wet market biosecurity reform: Three social narratives influence stakeholder responses in Vietnam, Kenya, and the Philippines.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001704.].

Blaming the unvaccinated during the COVID-19 pandemic: the roles of political ideology and risk perceptions in the USA.

Individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19 (C19) experienced prejudice and blame for the pandemic. Because people vastly overestimate C19 risks, we examined whether these negative judgements could be partially understood as a form of scapegoating (ie, blaming a group unfairly for an undesirable outcome) and whether political ideology (previously shown to shape risk perceptions in the USA) moderates scapegoating of the unvaccinated. We grounded our analyses in scapegoating literature and risk perception during C19. We obtained support for our speculations through two vignette-based studies conducted in the USA in early 2022. We varied the risk profiles (age, prior infection, comorbidities) and vaccination statuses of vignette characters (eg, vaccinated, vaccinated without recent boosters, unvaccinated, unvaccinated-recovered), while keeping all other information constant. We observed that people hold the unvaccinated (vs vaccinated) more responsible for negative pandemic outcomes and that political ideology moderated these effects: liberals (vs conservatives) were more likely to scapegoat the unvaccinated (vs vaccinated), even when presented with information challenging the culpability of the unvaccinated known at the time of data collection (eg, natural immunity, availability of vaccines, time since last vaccination). These findings support a scapegoating explanation for a specific group-based prejudice that emerged during the C19 pandemic. We encourage medical ethicists to examine the negative consequences of significant C19 risk overestimation among the public. The public needs accurate information about health issues. That may involve combating misinformation that overestimates and underestimates disease risk with similar vigilance to error.

Wet market biosecurity reform: Three social narratives influence stakeholder responses in Vietnam, Kenya, and the Philippines.

In 2020, Covid-19 led to global policy statements promoting bans and reforms to wet markets in Asia and Africa to prevent future pandemics. We conducted a comparative, exploratory qualitative study in 2021 in three countries (Kenya, Vietnam and the Philippines) to understand the social and political dimensions to biosecurity reform at wet markets. This included 60 key informant interviews and rapid ethnographic research in 15 markets, as well as a review of policy documents and online media articles. We found no evidence that the rhetoric of pandemic spillover that emerged in 2020 had any influence on policy or reform efforts apart from those related to Covid-19 infection control. Rather, we identified three main narratives that frame the problem of biosecurity and preferences for reform. The first, a human health narrative, questioned global framings about pandemic risk, viewed markets as sources for food security rather than disease, emphasized the need to strengthen the control of endemic diseases, and conceptualized health through the lens of 'freshness' rather than biomedical categories. A second modernization narrative approached biosecurity as part of a broader process of socio-economic development that emphasized infrastructural gaps, spatial arrangements, cleanliness and a conflict between reform and economic interests. A third narrative centered on local livelihoods and the tension between local market stakeholders and biosecurity and modernization efforts. This final narrative called into question the appropriateness of certain regulations and policies, including bans and closures, emphasized the importance of preserving cultural heritage and highlighted the need for collective political action to resist certain veterinary policies. In conclusion, wet market biosecurity strategies occur in the context of three contrasting narratives that emphasize different aspects of health and risk, and reflect different worldviews and interests. Within this context, there is a need for local government to strengthen market management and biosecurity in ways that enhance the agency of market stakeholders and strengthen local livelihoods and food security as part of a pluralistic and democratic politics.

Was lockdown worth it? community perspectives and experiences of the Covid-19 pandemic in remote southwestern Haiti.

Public experiences of COVID-19 pandemic lockdown differed dramatically between countries and socio-economic groups. Low-income countries raise unique empirical and ethical concerns about (1) the balance between benefits and social harms and (2) how explanatory disease models and everyday life realities influenced the experience and interpretation of lockdown itself. In this paper, we present qualitative data on community perceptions and experiences of the pandemic from a remote area of Haiti, with a focus on the 2020 lockdown. We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 community leaders in Grand'Anse Department, southwest Haiti, at two time periods: May 2020 and October-December 2021. We divide our results into five sections. First, our analysis showed that lockdown was widely considered ineffective at controlling COVID-19. Despite the lack of testing, community leaders believed most of the local population had caught COVID-19 in the first half of 2020, with limited reported mortality. Public concern about the pandemic largely ended at this time, overtaken by other socio-economic and political crises. Second, we found that popular explanations for the low fatality rate were related to various coping strategies: the strength of people's immune systems, use of natural prophylactic folk teas, beliefs about the virus, spiritual protections and the tropical weather. Third, we found that lockdown was widely seen to have not been appropriate for the Haitian context due to various challenges with compliance in the face of socio-economic vulnerability. Fourth, we found strong negative feelings about the social consequences of lockdown measures, which lasted from March-August 2020, including adverse effects on: food security, household income, education, health, and psychosocial well-being. Finally, these perceptions and experiences reinforced popular ideas that lockdown had been imposed by elites for financial and/or political gain, something that was also reflected in the discourse about the low vaccine acceptance rate. Our study showed that pandemic respiratory virus response in Haiti should better balance restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) with existing socio-economic vulnerability. Local socio-behavioral dynamics and risk perceptions decrease the overall effectiveness of NPIs in fragile states and alternatives to lockdown, such as shielding the most vulnerable, are likely to be a more appropriate strategy.

Rapid ethnography and participatory techniques increase onchocerciasis mass drug administration treatment coverage in Benin: a difference-in-differences analysis.

BACKGROUND: Onchocerciasis, a neglected tropical disease (NTD) that causes blindness, is controlled via mass drug administration (MDA) where entire endemic communities are targeted with preventative chemotherapeutic treatment. However, in many settings, MDA coverage remains low. The purpose of this project was to determine if engaging communities in the development of implementation strategies improves MDA coverage. METHODS: This study took place in an intervention and a control commune in Benin, West Africa. We conducted rapid ethnography in each commune to learn about community member perceptions of onchocerciasis, MDA, and opportunities to increase MDA coverage. Findings were shared with key stakeholders and a structured nominal group technique was used to derive implementation strategies most likely to increase treatment coverage. The implementation strategies were delivered prior to and during onchocerciasis MDA. We conducted a coverage survey within 2 weeks of MDA to determine treatment coverage in each commune. A difference-in-differences design was used to determine if the implementation package effectively increased coverage. A dissemination meeting was held with the NTD program and partners to share findings and determine the perceived acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of implementing rapid ethnography as part of routine program improvement. RESULTS: During rapid ethnography, key barriers to MDA participation included trust in community drug distributors, poor penetration of MDA programs in rural or geographically isolated areas, and low demand for MDA among specific sub-populations driven by religious or socio-cultural beliefs. Stakeholders developed a five-component implementation strategy package, including making drug distributor trainings dynamic, redesigning distributor job aids, tailoring community sensitization messages, formalizing supervision, and preparing local champions. After implementing the strategy package, MDA coverage increased by 13% (95% CI: 11.0-15.9%) in the intervention commune relative to the control commune. Ministry of Health and implementing partners found the approach to be largely acceptable and appropriate; however, there was mixed feedback regarding the feasibility of future implementation of rapid ethnography. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation research conducted in Benin, and indeed throughout sub-Saharan Africa, is often implemented in a top-down manner, with both implementation determinants and strategies derived in the global North. This project demonstrates the importance of participatory action research involving community members and implementers to optimize program delivery.

Evaluating a community engagement model for malaria elimination in Haiti: lessons from the community health council project (2019-2021).

BACKGROUND: Community engagement (CE) plays a critical role in malaria control and elimination. CE approaches vary substantially, with more participatory programmes requiring higher levels of adaptive management. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a volunteer-based CE programme developed in Haiti in 2018. The approach was based on local leaders organizing and implementing monthly anti-malaria activities in their communities, and was implemented as part of Malaria Zero Consortium activities. METHODS: This programme evaluation draws on quantitative and qualitative data collected from 23 Community Health Councils (CHCs) over a two-year period (2019-2021) in Grand'Anse department, a malaria hotspot region in Haiti. RESULTS: Monthly monitoring data showed that 100% of the 23 CHCs remained functional over the two-year period, with an average of 0.90 monthly meetings held with an 85% attendance rate. A high degree of transparency and diversity in membership helped create strong planning and involvement from members. CHCs conducted an average of 1.6 community-based activities per month, directly engaging an average of 123 people per month. High levels of fluctuation in monthly activities were indicative of local ownership and self-organization. This included school and church sensitization, environmental sanitation campaigns, mass education, support for case referrals and community mobilization during mass drug administration (MDA) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) campaigns. Members drew on the tradition of konbit (mutual self-help), local histories of health and development campaigns and a lexicon of "solidarity" in difficult times as they negotiated their agency as community volunteers. Small incentives played both symbolic and supportive roles. Some level of politicization was viewed as inevitable, even beneficial. Rumours about financial and political profiteering of CHC volunteers took time to dispel while the tendency towards vertical planning in malaria control created conditions that excluded CHCs from some activities. This generated resentment from members who felt sidelined by the government malaria programme. CONCLUSION: The CHC model was effective in promoting group solidarity and community-based anti-malaria activities over a two-year period in Haiti. With the end of the Malaria Zero Consortium in early 2021, there is now an opportunity to better integrate this programme into the primary healthcare system, evaluate the impact of the CHCs on malaria epidemiology, and promote the greater integration of CHCs with active surveillance and response activities.

Results from a Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Survey in Two Malaria Transmission Foci of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

Metropolitan Santo Domingo has accounted for a majority of reported malaria cases in the Dominican Republic in recent years. To inform malaria control and elimination efforts, a cross-sectional survey of malaria knowledge, attitudes, and practices collected 489 adult household-level questionnaires across 20 neighborhoods in the city's two main transmission foci, Los Tres Brazos (n = 286) and La Ciénaga (n = 203), in December 2020. Overall, most residents (69%) were aware of the problem of malaria in Santo Domingo, but less than half knew that mosquitos transmit the disease (46%) or took any correct preventative measure (45%). More residents of Los Tres Brazos, where malaria incidence is higher than in La Ciénaga, said that they had never been visited by active surveillance teams (80% versus 66%, respectively; P = 0.001), did not link mosquitos with malaria transmission (59% versus 48%, P = 0.013), and did not know medication can cure malaria (42% versus 27%, P = 0.005). Fewer residents of Los Tres Brazos said that malaria was a problem in their neighborhoods (43% versus 49%, P = 0.021) and fewer had mosquito bed nets in their homes (42% versus 60%, P < 0.001). The majority (75%) of questionnaire respondents in both foci did not have enough mosquito nets for all household residents. These findings demonstrate gaps in malaria knowledge and community-based interventions and highlight the need to improve community engagement for malaria elimination in affected areas of Santo Domingo.

An ethics of anthropology-informed community engagement with COVID-19 clinical trials in Africa.

The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the critical role of ethics and community engagement in designing and conducting clinical research during infectious disease outbreaks where no vaccine or treatment already exists. In reviewing current practices across Africa, we distinguish between three distinct roles for community engagement in clinical research that are often conflated: 1) the importance of community engagement for identifying and honouring cultural sensitivities; 2) the importance of recognising the socio-political context in which the research is proposed; and 3) the importance of understanding what is in the interest of communities recruited to research according to their own views and values. By making these distinctions, we show that current practice of clinical research could draw on anthropology in ways which are sometimes unnecessary to solicit local cultural values, overlook the importance of socio-political contexts and wider societal structures within which it works, potentially serving to reinforce unjust political or social regimes, and threaten to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the research. We argue that more discerning anthropological engagement as well as wider collaboration with other social scientists and those working in the humanities is urgently needed to improve the ethics of current biomedical and pharmaceutical research practice in Africa.

Research Participation Influences Willingness to Reduce Zoonotic Exposure in Uganda.

The majority of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases in people are zoonotic. Despite substantial research in communities adjacent to protected areas with high levels of biodiversity, limited data exist on people's knowledge, attitudes, and practices to avoid exposure to infections from domestic and wild animals. We used a modified grounded-theory framework in QS NVivo to develop a Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices (KAP) survey administered at two time points, KAPT1 (April-July 2016) and KAPT2 (February-May 2018) to participants living at the edge of Kibale National Park, Uganda. We measured the difference in willingness to engage in protective behaviors around zoonotic exposure between an Intervention group (n = 61) and a Comparison group (n = 125). Prior to KAPT1, the Intervention group engaged in a human-centered design (HCD) activity identifying behaviors that reduce zoonotic exposure (March-May 2016). Using a difference-in-difference approach, we compared the Intervention and Comparison groups to assess sustained willingness and use of protective behaviors against domestic and wild animal exposures. At KAPT1, Comparison group participants had a significantly lower (p < 0.05) level of willingness to engage in behaviors that increase exposure to zoonoses from domestic animals; Intervention group participants had a significantly higher (p < 0.01) level of willingness to engage in behaviors that increase exposure to zoonoses from wild animals. At KAPT2, the treatment effect was significant (p < 0.01) for sustained willingness to engage in protective behaviors for domestic animal exposure in the Intervention group. There were no significant differences in practices to avoid domestic and wild animal zoonotic exposure between the Intervention and Comparison groups.

Community acceptability of dengue fever surveillance using unmanned aerial vehicles: A cross-sectional study in Malaysia, Mexico, and Turkey.

Surveillance is a critical component of any dengue prevention and control program. There is an increasing effort to use drones in mosquito control surveillance. Due to the novelty of drones, data are scarce on the impact and acceptance of their use in the communities to collect health-related data. The use of drones raises concerns about the protection of human privacy. Here, we show how willingness to be trained and acceptance of drone use in tech-savvy communities can help further discussions in mosquito surveillance. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Malaysia, Mexico, and Turkey to assess knowledge of diseases caused by Aedes mosquitoes, perceptions about drone use for data collection, and acceptance of drones for Aedes mosquito surveillance around homes. Compared with people living in Turkey, Mexicans had 14.3 (p < 0.0001) times higher odds and Malaysians had 4.0 (p = 0.7030) times the odds of being willing to download a mosquito surveillance app. Compared to urban dwellers, rural dwellers had 1.56 times the odds of being willing to be trained. There is widespread community support for drone use in mosquito surveillance and this community buy-in suggests a potential for success in mosquito surveillance using drones. A successful surveillance and community engagement system may be used to monitor a variety of mosquito spp. Future research should include qualitative interview data to add context to these findings.

The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good.

Vaccination policies have shifted dramatically during COVID-19 with the rapid emergence of population-wide vaccine mandates, domestic vaccine passports and differential restrictions based on vaccination status. While these policies have prompted ethical, scientific, practical, legal and political debate, there has been limited evaluation of their potential unintended consequences. Here, we outline a comprehensive set of hypotheses for why these policies may ultimately be counterproductive and harmful. Our framework considers four domains: (1) behavioural psychology, (2) politics and law, (3) socioeconomics, and (4) the integrity of science and public health. While current vaccines appear to have had a significant impact on decreasing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality burdens, we argue that current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good. Restricting people's access to work, education, public transport and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarisation, and adversely affects health and well-being. Current policies may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunisations. Mandating vaccination is one of the most powerful interventions in public health and should be used sparingly and carefully to uphold ethical norms and trust in institutions. We argue that current COVID-19 vaccine policies should be re-evaluated in light of the negative consequences that we outline. Leveraging empowering strategies based on trust and public consultation, and improving healthcare services and infrastructure, represent a more sustainable approach to optimising COVID-19 vaccination programmes and, more broadly, the health and well-being of the public.

Chronic kidney disease in Ecuador: An epidemiological and health system analysis of an emerging public health crisis.

The absence of a chronic kidney disease (CKD) registry in Ecuador makes it difficult to assess the burden of disease, but there is an anticipated increase in the incidence of CKD along with increasing diabetes, hypertension and population age. From 2012, augmented funding for renal replacement therapy expanded dialysis clinics and patient coverage. We conducted 73 in-depth sociological interviews with healthcare providers in eight provinces and collected quantitative epidemiological data on patients with CKD diagnoses from six national-level databases between 2015 and 2018. Datasets show a total of 17,484 dialysis patients in 2018, or 567 patients per million population (pmp), with an annual cost exceeding 11% of Ecuador's public health budget. Each year, there were 139-162 pmp new dialysis patients, while doctors reported waiting lists. The number of patients on peritoneal dialysis was static; those on hemodialysis increased over time. Only 13 of 24 provinces were found to have dialysis services, and nephrologists were clustered in major cities, which limits access, delays medical attention, and adds a travel burden on patients. Prevention and screening programs are scarce, while hospitalization is an important reality for CKD patients. CKD is an emerging public health crisis that has increased dramatically over the last decade in Ecuador and is expected to continue, making coverage for all patients impossible and the current structure, unsustainable. A patient registry would help health policymakers and administrators estimate the demand and progression of patients with consideration for comorbidities, disease stage, requirements and costs, mortality and follow-up. This should be used to help identify where to focus prevention and improved treatment efforts. Organized monitoring of CKD patients would benefit from improvements in patient referral. Community-based education and prevention programs, the strengthening of primary healthcare capacity (including basic routine tests) and improved nephrology services are also urgently needed.

COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities.

In 2022, students at North American universities with third-dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates risk disenrolment if unvaccinated. To assess the appropriateness of booster mandates in this age group, we combine empirical risk-benefit assessment and ethical analysis. To prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation over a 6-month period, we estimate that 31 207-42 836 young adults aged 18-29 years must receive a third mRNA vaccine. Booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we anticipate at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines, including 1.5-4.6 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalisation). We also anticipate 1430-4626 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity interfering with daily activities (although typically not requiring hospitalisation). University booster mandates are unethical because they: (1) are not based on an updated (Omicron era) stratified risk-benefit assessment for this age group; (2) may result in a net harm to healthy young adults; (3) are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission; (4) violate the reciprocity principle because serious vaccine-related harms are not reliably compensated due to gaps in vaccine injury schemes; and (5) may result in wider social harms. We consider counterarguments including efforts to increase safety on campus but find these are fraught with limitations and little scientific support. Finally, we discuss the policy relevance of our analysis for primary series COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Incorporating qualitative research methods into the monitoring and evaluation of neglected tropical disease programmes: a scoping literature review.

This publication addresses the limited use of qualitative methods in neglected tropical disease (NTD) programmes. It describes a scoping literature review conducted to inform the development of a guide to inform the use of rapid qualitative assessments to strengthen NTD mass drug administration (MDA) programmes. The review assessed how qualitative methods are currently used by NTD programmes and identified qualitative approaches from other health and development programmes with the potential to strengthen the design of MDA interventions. Systematic review articles were reviewed and searched using key terms conducted on Google Scholar and PubMed. Results show that methods used by NTD programmes rely heavily on focus group discussions and in-depth interviews, often with time-consuming analysis and limited information on how results are applied. Results from other fields offered insight into a wider range of methods, including participatory approaches, and on how to increase programmatic uptake of findings. Recommendations on how to apply these findings to NTD control are made. The topic of human resources for qualitative investigations is explored and a guide to improve MDAs using qualitative methods is introduced. This guide has direct applicability across the spectrum of NTDs as well as other public health programmes.

Evaluation of the implementation process of the mobile health platform 'WelTel' in six sites in East Africa and Canada using the modified consolidated framework for implementation research (mCFIR).

BACKGROUND: Health systems globally are investing in integrating secure messaging platforms for virtual care in clinical practice. Implementation science is essential for adoption, scale-up, spread and maintenance of complex evidence-based solutions in clinics with evolving priorities. In response, the mobile Health (mHealth) Research Group modified the existing consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) to evaluate implementation of virtual health tools in clinical settings. WelTel® is an evidence-based digital health platform widely deployed in various geographical and health contexts. The objective is to identify the facilitators and barriers for implementing WelTel and to assess the application of the mCFIR tool in facilitating focus groups in different geographical and health settings. METHODS: Both qualitative and descriptive quantitative approaches were employed. Six mCFIR sessions were held in three countries with 51 key stakeholders. The mCFIR tool consists of 5 Domains and 25 constructs and was distributed through Qualtrics Experience Management (XM). "Performance" and "Importance" scores were valued on a scale of 0 to 10 (Mean ± SD). Descriptive analysis was conducted using R computing software. NVivo 12 Pro software was used to analyze mCFIR responses and to generate themes from the participants' input. RESULTS: We observed a parallel trend in the scores of Importance and Performance. Of the five Domains, Domain 4 (End-user Characteristics) and Domain 3 (Inner Settings) scored highest in Importance (8.9 ± 0.5 and 8.6 ± 0.6, respectively) and Performance (7.6 ± 0.7 and 7.2 ± 1.3, respectively) for all sites. Domain 2 (Outer Setting) scored the lowest in both Importance and Performance for all sites (7.6 ± 0.4 and 5.6 ± 1.8). The thematic analysis produced the following themes: for areas of strengths, the themes brought up were timely diagnosis and response, cost-effectiveness, and user-friendliness. As for areas for improvement, the themes discussed were training, phone accessibility, stakeholder engagement, and literacy. CONCLUSION: The mCFIR tool allowed for a comprehensive understanding of the barriers and facilitators to the implementation, reach, and scale-up of digital health tools. Amongst several important findings, we observed the value of bringing the perspectives of both end users (HCPs and patients) to the table across Domains. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02603536 - November 11, 2015: WelTelOAKTREE: Text Messaging to Support Patients With HIV/AIDS in British Columbia (WelTelOAKTREE). NCT01549457 - March 9, 2012: TB mHealth Study-Use of Cell Phones to Improve Compliance in Patients on LTBI Treatment.