提高世卫组织推荐的分子快速诊断检测的吸收和影响的实施战略:来自混合方法系统评价的证据。

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":"提高世卫组织推荐的分子快速诊断检测的吸收和影响的实施战略:来自混合方法系统评价的证据。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

不到50%的结核病患者接受了世卫组织推荐的分子快速诊断检测(mWRD)。我们进行了一项混合方法的系统回顾,对影响mWRD使用的障碍和推动因素进行了分类,并对mWRD实施策略进行了影响和评估。该审查的部分内容为世卫组织标准提供了信息:普遍获得结核病诊断方法。方法:截至2022年7月29日,我们检索了多个无语言限制的数据库。我们纳入了使用定性、定量或混合方法研究设计的研究。四名审稿人独立筛选研究并提取数据。我们将研究分为厚或薄,这取决于作者是否分析了超出描述性障碍或促成因素列表的发现,并展示了对参与者观点的见解。我们采用报告实施研究的标准来评价研究的质量。我们使用专题方法综合数据,并使用GRADE-CERQual评估研究结果的可信度。结果:我们确定了来自18个国家的54项高厚度研究,包括公共和私人医疗机构。实施战略包括吸引患者、培训和支持临床医生、建设基础设施和互动援助。例子包括远程推广方案、社区测试、纵向临床医生参与、辅助工作人员、多成分战略、绩效反馈、改进卫生信息管理以加强护理联系和改进诊断网络。我们对我们的发现有很高或中等程度的信心。结论:结核病规划需要创新和与实际情况相关的实施战略,以实现mwrd提供的提高准确性和诊断便捷性的好处。必须优先考虑以公平为中心的多要素战略和跨诊断级联的纵向卫生工作者培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Implementation strategies to increase the uptake and impact of molecular WHO-recommended rapid diagnostic tests: evidence from a mixed-methods systematic review.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信