An Interactive Voice Response Software to Improve the Quality of Life of People Living With HIV in Uganda: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Following the successful scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART), the focus is now on ensuring good quality of life (QoL) and sustained viral suppression in people living with HIV. The access to mobile technology in the most burdened countries is increasing rapidly, and therefore, mobile health (mHealth) technologies could be leveraged to improve QoL in people living with HIV. However, data on the impact of mHealth tools on the QoL in people living with HIV are limited to the evaluation of SMS text messaging; these are infeasible in high-illiteracy settings. OBJECTIVE: The primary and secondary outcomes were to determine the impact of interactive voice response (IVR) technology on Medical Outcomes Study HIV QoL scores and viral suppression at 12 months, respectively. METHODS: Within the Call for Life study, ART-experienced and ART-naïve people living with HIV commencing ART were randomized (1:1 ratio) to the control (no IVR support) or intervention arm (daily adherence and pre-appointment reminders, health information tips, and option to report symptoms). The software evaluated was Call for Life Uganda, an IVR technology that is based on the Mobile Technology for Community Health open-source software. Eligibility criteria for participation included access to a phone, fluency in local languages, and provision of consent. The differences in differences (DIDs) were computed, adjusting for baseline HIV RNA and CD4. RESULTS: Overall, 600 participants (413 female, 68.8%) were enrolled and followed-up for 12 months. In the intervention arm of 300 participants, 298 (99.3%) opted for IVR and 2 (0.7%) chose SMS text messaging as the mode of receiving reminders and health tips. At 12 months, there was no overall difference in the QoL between the intervention and control arms (DID=0.0; P=.99) or HIV RNA (DID=0.01; P=.94). At 12 months, 124 of the 256 (48.4%) active participants had picked up at least 50% of the calls. In the active intervention participants, high users (received >75% of reminders) had overall higher QoL compared to low users (received <25% of reminders) (92.2 versus 87.8, P=.02). Similarly, high users also had higher QoL scores in the mental health domain (93.1 versus 86.8, P=.008) and better appointment keeping. Similarly, participants with moderate use (51%-75%) had better viral suppression at 12 months (80/94, 85% versus 11/19, 58%, P=.006). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was high uptake and acceptability of the IVR tool. While we found no overall difference in the QoL and viral suppression between study arms, people living with HIV with higher usage of the tool showed greater improvements in QoL, viral suppression, and appointment keeping. With the declining resources available to HIV programs and the increasing number of people living with HIV accessing ART, IVR technology could be used to support patient care. The tool may be helpful in situations where physical consultations are infeasible, including the current COVID epidemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02953080; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02953080.

Implementation of provider-based electronic medical records and improvement of the quality of data in a large HIV program in Sub-Saharan Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Starting in June 2010 the Infectious Diseases Institute (IDI) clinic (a large urban HIV out-patient facility) switched to provider-based Electronic Medical Records (EMR) from paper EMR entered in the database by data-entry clerks. Standardized clinics forms were eliminated but providers still fill free text clinical notes in physical patients' files. The objective of this study was to compare the rate of errors in the database before and after the introduction of the provider-based EMR. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data in the database pre and post provider-based EMR was compared with the information in the patients' files and classified as correct, incorrect, and missing. We calculated the proportion of incorrect, missing and total error for key variables (toxicities, opportunistic infections, reasons for treatment change and interruption). Proportions of total errors were compared using chi-square test. A survey of the users of the EMR was also conducted. We compared data from 2,382 visits (from 100 individuals) of a retrospective validation conducted in 2007 with 34,957 visits (from 10,920 individuals) of a prospective validation conducted in April-August 2011. The total proportion of errors decreased from 66.5% in 2007 to 2.1% in 2011 for opportunistic infections, from 51.9% to 3.5% for ART toxicity, from 82.8% to 12.5% for reasons for ART interruption and from 94.1% to 0.9% for reasons for ART switch (all P<0.0001). The survey showed that 83% of the providers agreed that provider-based EMR led to improvement of clinical care, 80% reported improved access to patients' records, and 80% appreciated the automation of providers' tasks. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of provider-based EMR improved the quality of data collected with a significant reduction in missing and incorrect information. The majority of providers and clients expressed satisfaction with the new system. We recommend the use of provider-based EMR in large HIV programs in Sub-Saharan Africa.