Display options
Share it on

Diagnostics (Basel). 2017 Jan 08;7(1). doi: 10.3390/diagnostics7010003.

Implementation of Point-of-Care Diagnostics in Rural Primary Healthcare Clinics in South Africa: Perspectives of Key Stakeholders.

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)

Tivani P Mashamba-Thompson, Ngcwalisa A Jama, Benn Sartorius, Paul K Drain, Rowan M Thompson

Affiliations

  1. Discipline of Public Health Medicine, School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4001, South Africa. [email protected].
  2. Discipline of Rural Health, School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4001, South Africa. [email protected].
  3. Discipline of Public Health Medicine, School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4001, South Africa. [email protected].
  4. International Clinical Research Center, Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA. [email protected].
  5. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA. [email protected].
  6. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA. [email protected].
  7. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA. [email protected].
  8. Department of Maths, Science and Technology, Embury Institute, Durban, 4001, South Africa. [email protected].

PMID: 28075337 PMCID: PMC5373012 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics7010003

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Key stakeholders' involvement is crucial to the sustainability of quality point-of-care (POC) diagnostics services in low-and-middle income countries. The aim of this study was to explore key stakeholder perceptions on the implementation of POC diagnostics in rural primary healthcare (PHC) clinics in South Africa.

METHOD: We conducted a qualitative study encompassing in-depth interviews with multiple key stakeholders of POC diagnostic services for rural and resource-limited PHC clinics. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim prior to thematic content analysis. Thematic content analysis was conducted using themes guided by the World Health Organisation (WHO) quality-ASSURED (Affordable, Sensitive, Specific, User friendly, Rapid and to enable treatment at first visit and Robust, Equipment free and Delivered to those who need it) criteria for POC diagnostic services in resource-limited settings.

RESULTS: 11 key stakeholders participated in the study. All stakeholders perceived the main advantage of POC diagnostics as enabling access to healthcare for rural patients. Stakeholders perceived the current POC diagnostic services to have an ability to meet patients' needs, but recommended further improvement of the following areas: research on cost-effectiveness; improved quality management systems; development of affordable POC diagnostic and clinic-based monitoring and evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS: Key stakeholders of POC diagnostics in rural PHC clinics in South Africa highlighted the need to assess affordability and ensure quality assurance of current services before adopting new POC diagnostics and scaling up current POC diagnostics.

Keywords: key stakeholders; performance; point-of-care diagnostics; primary healthcare clinic

References

  1. P R Health Sci J. 2002 Jun;21(2):133-5 - PubMed
  2. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2004 Oct;20(10):1046-52 - PubMed
  3. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2005 Jul;12(7):855-60 - PubMed
  4. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006 Dec;4(12 Suppl):S7-19 - PubMed
  5. Nature. 2006 Nov 23;444 Suppl 1:49-57 - PubMed
  6. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2007 Oct-Dec;21(4):298-306 - PubMed
  7. Res Nurs Health. 2008 Aug;31(4):391-8 - PubMed
  8. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Feb;198(2):183.e1-7 - PubMed
  9. Trop Med Int Health. 2008 May;13(5):680-2 - PubMed
  10. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2008;10:107-44 - PubMed
  11. AIDS Care. 2008 Oct;20(9):1125-7 - PubMed
  12. Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Feb;88(2):154-8 - PubMed
  13. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011 Nov 1;58(3):e54-9 - PubMed
  14. Int J STD AIDS. 2011 Dec;22(12):742-7 - PubMed
  15. Discov Med. 2012 Jan;13(68):35-45 - PubMed
  16. J Infect Dis. 2012 May 15;205 Suppl 2:S169-80 - PubMed
  17. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35278 - PubMed
  18. Tuberc Res Treat. 2012;2012:827148 - PubMed
  19. PLoS Med. 2012;9(9):e1001306 - PubMed
  20. Nature. 2013 Mar 21;495(7441):305-7 - PubMed
  21. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 26;8(6):e66905 - PubMed
  22. BMC Fam Pract. 2013 Aug 14;14:117 - PubMed
  23. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014 Mar;14(3):239-49 - PubMed
  24. Sci Transl Med. 2014 Jun 11;6(240):240ed13 - PubMed
  25. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Nov;127(2):213-5 - PubMed
  26. BMC Res Notes. 2014 Oct 22;7:746 - PubMed
  27. Trop Med Int Health. 2015 Apr;20(4):493-500 - PubMed
  28. Lancet Glob Health. 2015 May;3(5):e257-8 - PubMed
  29. PLoS One. 2015 Aug 14;10(8):e0135112 - PubMed
  30. Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Oct 15;61Suppl 3:S119-25 - PubMed
  31. J Clin Virol. 2016 Mar;76:8-13 - PubMed
  32. Diagnostics (Basel). 2015 May 19;5(2):200-9 - PubMed
  33. BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 17;6(3):e009702 - PubMed
  34. Trends Biotechnol. 2016 Nov;34(11):909-921 - PubMed
  35. BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 27;6(6):e011155 - PubMed
  36. Diagnostics (Basel). 2016 Aug 31;6(3):null - PubMed
  37. Afr J Lab Med. 2016 Sep 30;5(1):449 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support