IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0312001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A meta-analysis of technology-based interventions on treatment adherence and treatment success among TBC patients

Author

Listed:
  • Mega Hasanul Huda
  • Muhamad Fauzi Rahman
  • Yusuf Zalaya
  • Muhammad Amirul Mukminin
  • Telly Purnamasari
  • Harimat Hendarwan
  • Amir Su’udi
  • Armedy Ronny Hasugian
  • Yuyun Yuniar
  • Rini Sasanti Handayani
  • Rudi Hendro Putranto
  • Aris Yulianto
  • Anton Suryatma
  • Mieska Despitasari
  • Riswal Nafi Siregar

Abstract

Various technology-based interventions have been designed to improve medication adherence and treatment success. However, research on the most effective mode to address this issue is still limited. Our study evaluated the effectiveness of technology-based interventions in improving treatment adherence, completion, and treatment success among tuberculosis (TBC) patients. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials by searching articles from six databases including PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane, Jstor, Embase, and Scopus from 2018 to April 2023. Two independent reviewers assessed the study quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. We analysed the data using a random-effects model. We also conducted publication bias and sensitivity analysis. In total, 13 studies were identified and 4,794 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicated that technology-based interventions were effective in improving treatment adherence, completion, and success (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.57, 95% Confident Interval (CI): 1.01–6.50, I2 = 86.6%; OR: 1.77, 95% CI: 0.95–3.28, I2: 82.3%; OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 0.85–3.06, I2: 84%, respectively). We examined the possibility of publication bias in the published studies included in this systematic review. However, no evidence of publication bias was found. From the sensitivity analysis by removing one study randomly, we found that our results are robust. Based on the results, we can conclude that technology-based interventions like MERM, text-based messages, video conferencing, and VOT are effective in increasing treatment adherence and completion in tuberculosis management. Therefore, technology shows immense potential in enhancing patient outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Mega Hasanul Huda & Muhamad Fauzi Rahman & Yusuf Zalaya & Muhammad Amirul Mukminin & Telly Purnamasari & Harimat Hendarwan & Amir Su’udi & Armedy Ronny Hasugian & Yuyun Yuniar & Rini Sasanti Handayani, 2024. "A meta-analysis of technology-based interventions on treatment adherence and treatment success among TBC patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(12), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0312001
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312001
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312001&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0312001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Narges Alipanah & Leah Jarlsberg & Cecily Miller & Nguyen Nhat Linh & Dennis Falzon & Ernesto Jaramillo & Payam Nahid, 2018. "Adherence interventions and outcomes of tuberculosis treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials and observational studies," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-44, July.
    2. repec:plo:pmed00:1002891 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Deaton, Angus & Cartwright, Nancy, 2018. "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 2-21.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Perrotta, Manuela & Geampana, Alina, 2020. "The trouble with IVF and randomised control trials: Professional legitimation narratives on time-lapse imaging and evidence-informed care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    2. Kwang-Sim Jang & Jeong-Eun Oh & Gyeong-Suk Jeon, 2022. "Effects of Simulated Laughter Therapy Using a Breathing Exercise: A Study on Hospitalized Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-13, August.
    3. Christopher J. Ruhm, 2019. "Shackling the Identification Police?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(4), pages 1016-1026, April.
    4. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Claire Mackevicius & Min Sok Lee & Dana Suskind, 2019. "How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling," Artefactual Field Experiments 00679, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. Martin, Will, 2021. "Tools for measuring the full impacts of agricultural interventions," IFPRI-MCC technical papers 2, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Andor, Mark A. & Gerster, Andreas & Peters, Jörg & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2020. "Social Norms and Energy Conservation Beyond the US," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    7. Kabeer, Naila, 2020. "‘Misbehaving’ RCTs: The confounding problem of human agency," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    8. Cristina Bellés-Obrero & María Lombardi, 2022. "Teacher Performance Pay and Student Learning: Evidence from a Nationwide Program in Peru," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70(4), pages 1631-1669.
    9. Sophie van Huellen & Duo Qin, 2019. "Compulsory Schooling and Returns to Education: A Re-Examination," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-20, September.
    10. Marchionni, Caterina & Reijula, Samuli, 2018. "What is mechanistic evidence, and why do we need it for evidence-based policy?," SocArXiv 4ufbm, Center for Open Science.
    11. Bayer, Patrick & Kennedy, Ryan & Yang, Joonseok & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2020. "The need for impact evaluation in electricity access research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    12. Jesus Fernandez-Villaverde, 2020. "Simple Rules for a Complex World with Arti?cial Intelligence," PIER Working Paper Archive 20-010, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    13. Vellore Arthi & James Fenske, 2018. "Polygamy and child mortality: Historical and modern evidence from Nigeria’s Igbo," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 97-141, March.
    14. Ravallion, Martin, 2020. "Highly prized experiments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    15. Irina Gemmo & Pierre-Carl Michaud & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2023. "Selection into Financial Education and Effects on Portfolio Choice," NBER Working Papers 31682, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Jonathan Salcedo & Monica Rosales & Jeniffer S Kim & Daisy Nuno & Sze-chuan Suen & Alicia H Chang, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence monitoring for active tuberculosis treatment: A modeling study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-15, July.
    17. Paige Seitz & Robert Strong & Steve Hague & Theresa P. Murphrey, 2022. "Evaluating Agricultural Extension Agent’s Sustainable Cotton Land Production Competencies: Subject Matter Discrepancies Restricting Farmers’ Information Adoption," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, November.
    18. Haoge Chang & Joel Middleton & P. M. Aronow, 2021. "Exact Bias Correction for Linear Adjustment of Randomized Controlled Trials," Papers 2110.08425, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    19. Andreas C Drichoutis & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Economic Rationality under Cognitive Load," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(632), pages 2382-2409.
    20. Wallin, Annika & Wahlberg, Lena & Persson, Johannes & Dewitt, Barry, 2020. "“Science and proven experience”: How should the epistemology of medicine inform the regulation of healthcare?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(8), pages 842-848.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0312001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.