Performance of non-laboratory staff for diagnostic testing and specimen collection in HIV programs: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
25
01
2018
accepted:
17
04
2019
entrez:
4
5
2019
pubmed:
3
5
2019
medline:
15
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In most high HIV burden countries, many HIV patients do not have reliable access to required diagnostic laboratory tests. Task shifting of clinical tasks to lower cadres of health care workers and lay counselors has been successful in scaling up treatment for HIV and may also be an effective strategy in expanding access to essential diagnostic testing. We screened major electronic databases between 1 January 2005 to 26 August 2018 to identify studies assessing ease of use and accuracy of task shifting of HIV-related diagnostic testing and/or specimen collection to non-laboratory health staff. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts for studies that analyzed diagnostic accuracy, patient impact, ease-of-use, or cost-effectiveness. Studies were assessed for quality, bias, and applicability following the QUADAS-2 framework. We generated summary estimates using random-effects meta-analyses. We identified 42 relevant studies. Overall, point-of-care CD4 testing performed by non-laboratory staff had a mean bias of -54.44 (95% CI: -72.40 --36.48) compared to conventional laboratory-based. Though studies were limited, the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care alanine transaminase enzyme (ALT) and hemoglobin testing performed by non-laboratory staff was comparable to conventional laboratory-based testing by laboratory professionals. Point-of-care testing and/or specimen collection were generally found to be acceptable and easy to use for non-laboratory staff. Task shifting of testing using point-of-care technologies to non-laboratory staff was comparable to laboratory professionals operating the same technology in the laboratory. Some variability was observed comparing the performance of point-of-care CD4 testing by non-laboratory staff to conventional laboratory-based technologies by laboratory professionals indicating potential lower performance was likely technological rather than operator caused. The benefits of task shifting of testing may outweigh any possible harms as task shifting allows for increased decentralization, access of specific diagnostics, and faster result delivery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In most high HIV burden countries, many HIV patients do not have reliable access to required diagnostic laboratory tests. Task shifting of clinical tasks to lower cadres of health care workers and lay counselors has been successful in scaling up treatment for HIV and may also be an effective strategy in expanding access to essential diagnostic testing.
METHODS
We screened major electronic databases between 1 January 2005 to 26 August 2018 to identify studies assessing ease of use and accuracy of task shifting of HIV-related diagnostic testing and/or specimen collection to non-laboratory health staff. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts for studies that analyzed diagnostic accuracy, patient impact, ease-of-use, or cost-effectiveness. Studies were assessed for quality, bias, and applicability following the QUADAS-2 framework. We generated summary estimates using random-effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
We identified 42 relevant studies. Overall, point-of-care CD4 testing performed by non-laboratory staff had a mean bias of -54.44 (95% CI: -72.40 --36.48) compared to conventional laboratory-based. Though studies were limited, the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care alanine transaminase enzyme (ALT) and hemoglobin testing performed by non-laboratory staff was comparable to conventional laboratory-based testing by laboratory professionals. Point-of-care testing and/or specimen collection were generally found to be acceptable and easy to use for non-laboratory staff.
CONCLUSIONS
Task shifting of testing using point-of-care technologies to non-laboratory staff was comparable to laboratory professionals operating the same technology in the laboratory. Some variability was observed comparing the performance of point-of-care CD4 testing by non-laboratory staff to conventional laboratory-based technologies by laboratory professionals indicating potential lower performance was likely technological rather than operator caused. The benefits of task shifting of testing may outweigh any possible harms as task shifting allows for increased decentralization, access of specific diagnostics, and faster result delivery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31048881
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216277
pii: PONE-D-18-02723
pmc: PMC6497381
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0216277Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 01;(7):CD007331
pubmed: 24980859
J Int AIDS Soc. 2012 Jan 30;15(1):3
pubmed: 22284546
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 17;12(8):e0183237
pubmed: 28817643
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2018 Aug 15;78(5):574-578
pubmed: 29771787
Sex Transm Infect. 2014 Feb;90(1):14-8
pubmed: 24031029
J Clin Virol. 2014 Aug;60(4):392-8
pubmed: 24906641
Bull World Health Organ. 2015 Sep 1;93(9):623-30
pubmed: 26478626
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2006 Jul;10(7):789-94
pubmed: 16848342
PLoS One. 2017 May 25;12(5):e0178037
pubmed: 28542359
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Aug 02;16(a):343
pubmed: 27484023
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 30;8(9):e75616
pubmed: 24098705
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Feb 1;71(2):e34-43
pubmed: 26484742
Sex Transm Infect. 2015 Mar;91(2):94-6
pubmed: 25305212
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jun 13;368(24):2319-24
pubmed: 23758238
J Immunol Methods. 2017 Sep;448:44-50
pubmed: 28529048
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
BMC Med. 2015 Jul 25;13:168
pubmed: 26208867
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010 Sep;55(1):1-7
pubmed: 20622679
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 31;10(12):e0145586
pubmed: 26720601
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 10;13(7):e0198698
pubmed: 29990336
Afr J Lab Med. 2017 Sep 18;6(1):643
pubmed: 29159139
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013 Jul 1;63(3):e113-5
pubmed: 23760094
J Int AIDS Soc. 2013 Sep 16;16:18649
pubmed: 24044627
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 24;11(8):e0161891
pubmed: 27556894
S Afr Med J. 2015 Mar;105(3):228-31
pubmed: 26294832
AIDS. 2013 Nov;27 Suppl 2:S197-205
pubmed: 24361629
Lancet. 2006 Apr 22;367(9519):1335-42
pubmed: 16631912
S Afr Med J. 2020 Jan 29;110(2):126-131
pubmed: 32657683
BMC Res Notes. 2017 Jan 4;10(1):20
pubmed: 28057054
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 17;9(9):e107410
pubmed: 25229408
Lancet. 2006 Aug 5;368(9534):505-10
pubmed: 16890837
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Aug 1;61(3):464-7
pubmed: 25838287
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011 Dec 1;58(4):e103-11
pubmed: 21909029
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 23;10(4):e0121400
pubmed: 25905775
Chin Med J (Engl). 2015 Apr 5;128(7):890-5
pubmed: 25836608
PLoS One. 2016 May 13;11(5):e0155256
pubmed: 27175484
AIDS Care. 2017 Dec;29(12):1473-1479
pubmed: 28436276
Hum Resour Health. 2007 Feb 28;5:7
pubmed: 17328804
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e34319
pubmed: 22536323
AIDS. 2016 Jan 2;30(1):159-61
pubmed: 26731762
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 20;8(12):e85265
pubmed: 24376873
PLoS Med. 2016 Aug 23;13(8):e1002088
pubmed: 27551917
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 23;13(8):e0202018
pubmed: 30138398
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005 Apr 15;38(5):615-7
pubmed: 15793374
AIDS. 2007 Jul 31;21(12):1643-5
pubmed: 17630562
AIDS. 2011 Mar 27;25(6):807-12
pubmed: 21378535
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120