Implementation strategies to increase the uptake and impact of molecular WHO-recommended rapid diagnostic tests: evidence from a mixed-methods systematic review.
IF 6.1 2区 医学Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Ruvandhi R Nathavitharana, Abarna Pearl, Matthew O'Bryan, Matthew Edwards, Helene-Mari van der Westhuizen, Bruna Voldman, Advaith Subramanian, Naveed Delrooz, Omolayo Anjorin, Amanda Biewer, Carl-Michael Nathanson, Nora Engel, Nazir Ismail, Andrew McDowell, Karen Steingart
{"title":"Implementation strategies to increase the uptake and impact of molecular WHO-recommended rapid diagnostic tests: evidence from a mixed-methods systematic review.","authors":"Ruvandhi R Nathavitharana, Abarna Pearl, Matthew O'Bryan, Matthew Edwards, Helene-Mari van der Westhuizen, Bruna Voldman, Advaith Subramanian, Naveed Delrooz, Omolayo Anjorin, Amanda Biewer, Carl-Michael Nathanson, Nora Engel, Nazir Ismail, Andrew McDowell, Karen Steingart","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-018700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Fewer than 50% of people with tuberculosis receive a molecular WHO-recommended rapid diagnostic test (mWRD). We performed a mixed-methods systematic review to categorise barriers and enablers that affect mWRD use and impact and evaluate mWRD implementation strategies. Parts of this review informed the WHO standard: Universal Access to Tuberculosis Diagnostics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched multiple databases without language restrictions until 29 July 2022. We included studies that used qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods study designs. Four reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. We categorised studies as thick or thin depending on whether authors analysed findings beyond a descriptive list of barriers or enablers and demonstrated insights into participants' perspectives. We appraised study quality by adapting the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies statement. We synthesised data using a thematic approach and used GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in the findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 54 high-thickness studies from 18 countries, including public and private healthcare settings. Implementation strategies included engaging patients, training and supporting clinicians, building infrastructure and interactive assistance. Examples included remote outreach programmes, community testing, longitudinal clinician engagement, auxiliary workers, multicomponent strategies, performance feedback, improving health information management to strengthen care linkage and diagnostic network improvement. We had high or moderate confidence in our findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Innovative and contextually relevant implementation strategies are needed for tuberculosis programmes to realise the benefits of improved accuracy and diagnostic expediency that mWRDs offer. Multicomponent strategies that centre equity and longitudinal health worker training across the diagnostic cascade must be prioritised.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":"10 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12458786/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-018700","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Fewer than 50% of people with tuberculosis receive a molecular WHO-recommended rapid diagnostic test (mWRD). We performed a mixed-methods systematic review to categorise barriers and enablers that affect mWRD use and impact and evaluate mWRD implementation strategies. Parts of this review informed the WHO standard: Universal Access to Tuberculosis Diagnostics.
Methods: We searched multiple databases without language restrictions until 29 July 2022. We included studies that used qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods study designs. Four reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. We categorised studies as thick or thin depending on whether authors analysed findings beyond a descriptive list of barriers or enablers and demonstrated insights into participants' perspectives. We appraised study quality by adapting the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies statement. We synthesised data using a thematic approach and used GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in the findings.
Results: We identified 54 high-thickness studies from 18 countries, including public and private healthcare settings. Implementation strategies included engaging patients, training and supporting clinicians, building infrastructure and interactive assistance. Examples included remote outreach programmes, community testing, longitudinal clinician engagement, auxiliary workers, multicomponent strategies, performance feedback, improving health information management to strengthen care linkage and diagnostic network improvement. We had high or moderate confidence in our findings.
Conclusion: Innovative and contextually relevant implementation strategies are needed for tuberculosis programmes to realise the benefits of improved accuracy and diagnostic expediency that mWRDs offer. Multicomponent strategies that centre equity and longitudinal health worker training across the diagnostic cascade must be prioritised.
期刊介绍:
BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.