mHealth to improve implementation of TB contact investigation: a case study from Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science offers a systematic approach to adapting innovations and delivery strategies to new contexts but has yet to be widely applied in low- and middle-income countries. The Fogarty Center for Global Health Studies is sponsoring a special series, "Global Implementation Science Case Studies," to address this gap. METHODS: We developed a case study for this series describing our approach and lessons learned while conducting a prospective, multi-modal study to design, implement, and evaluate an implementation strategy for TB contact investigation in Kampala, Uganda. The study included formative, evaluative, and summative phases that allowed us to develop and test an adapted contact investigation intervention involving home-based sample collection for TB and HIV testing. We concurrently developed a multi-component mHealth implementation strategy involving fingerprint scanning, electronic decision support, and automated reporting of test results via text message. We then conducted a household-randomized, hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial comparing the adapted intervention and implementation strategy to usual care. Our assessment included nested quantitative and qualitative studies to understand the strategy's acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, and costs. Reflecting on this process with a multi-disciplinary team of implementing researchers and local public health partners, we provide commentary on the previously published studies and how the results influenced the adaptation of international TB contact investigation guidelines to fit the local context. RESULTS: While the trial did not show improvements in contact investigation delivery or public health outcomes, our multi-modal evaluation strategy helped us identify which elements of home-based, mHealth-facilitated contact investigation were feasible, acceptable, and appropriate and which elements reduced its fidelity and sustainability, including high costs. We identified a need for better tools for measuring implementation that are simple, quantitative, and repeatable and for greater attention to ethical issues in implementation science. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a theory-informed, community-engaged approach to implementation offered many learnings and actionable insights for delivering TB contact investigation and using implementation science in low-income countries. Future implementation trials, especially those incorporating mHealth strategies, should apply the learnings from this case study to enhance the rigor, equity, and impact of implementation research in global health settings.

A cost analysis of implementing mobile health facilitated tuberculosis contact investigation in a low-income setting.

INTRODUCTION: Mobile health (mHealth) applications may improve timely access to health services and improve patient-provider communication, but the upfront costs of implementation may be prohibitive, especially in resource-limited settings. METHODS: We measured the costs of developing and implementing an mHealth-facilitated, home-based strategy for tuberculosis (TB) contact investigation in Kampala, Uganda, between February 2014 and July 2017. We compared routine implementation involving community health workers (CHWs) screening and referring household contacts to clinics for TB evaluation to home-based HIV testing and sputum collection and transport with test results delivered by automated short messaging services (SMS). We carried out key informant interviews with CHWs and asked them to complete time-and-motion surveys. We estimated program costs from the perspective of the Ugandan health system, using top-down and bottom-up (components-based) approaches. We estimated total costs per contact investigated and per TB-positive contact identified in 2018 US dollars, one and five years after program implementation. RESULTS: The total top-down cost was $472,327, including $358,504 (76%) for program development and $108,584 (24%) for program implementation. This corresponded to $320-$348 per household contact investigated and $8,873-$9,652 per contact diagnosed with active TB over a 5-year period. CHW time was spent primarily evaluating household contacts who returned to the clinic for evaluation (median 30 minutes per contact investigated, interquartile range [IQR]: 30-70), collecting sputum samples (median 29 minutes, IQR: 25-30) and offering HIV testing services (median 28 minutes, IQR: 17-43). Cost estimates were sensitive to infrastructural capacity needs, program reach, and the epidemiological yield of contact investigation. CONCLUSION: Over 75% of all costs of the mHealth-facilitated TB contact investigation strategy were dedicated to establishing mHealth infrastructure and capacity. Implementing the mHealth strategy at scale and maintaining it over a longer time horizon could help decrease development costs as a proportion of total costs.

Comparison of rapid tests for detection of rifampicin-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Kampala, Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Drug resistant tuberculosis (TB) is a growing concern worldwide. Rapid detection of resistance expedites appropriate intervention to control the disease. Several technologies have recently been reported to detect rifampicin resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis directly in sputum samples. These include phenotypic culture based methods, tests for gene mutations and tests based on bacteriophage replication. The aim of the present study was to assess the feasibility of implementing technology for rapid detection of rifampicin resistance in a high disease burden setting in Africa. METHODS: Sputum specimens from re-treatment TB patients presenting to the Mulago Hospital National TB Treatment Centre in Kampala, Uganda, were examined by conventional methods and simultaneously used in one of the four direct susceptibility tests, namely direct BACTEC 460, Etest, "in-house" phage test, and INNO- Rif.TB. The reference method was the BACTEC 460 indirect culture drug susceptibility testing. Test performance, cost and turn around times were assessed. RESULTS: In comparison with indirect BACTEC 460, the respective sensitivities and specificities for detecting rifampicin resistance were 100% and 100% for direct BACTEC and the Etest, 94% and 95% for the phage test, and 87% and 87% for the Inno-LiPA assay. Turn around times ranged from an average of 3 days for the INNO-LiPA and phage tests, 8 days for the direct BACTEC 460 and 20 days for the Etest. All methods were faster than the indirect BACTEC 460 which had a mean turn around time of 24 days. The cost per test, including labour ranged from $18.60 to $41.92 (USD). CONCLUSION: All four rapid technologies were shown capable of detecting rifampicin resistance directly from sputum. The LiPA proved rapid, but was the most expensive. It was noted, however, that the LiPA test allows sterilization of samples prior to testing thereby reducing the risk of accidental laboratory transmission. In contrast the Etest was low cost, but slow and would be of limited assistance when treating patients. The phage test was the least reproducible test studied with failure rate of 27%. The test preferred by the laboratory personnel, direct BACTEC 460, requires further study to determine its accuracy in real-time treatment decisions in Uganda.